Prev: JSH: Prime gap equation consequences
Next: valid Indirect Euclid IP leads to twin prime proof #4.12 Correcting Math
From: Ron on 24 Jul 2010 22:33
On Jul 24, 10:30 pm, "Jon" <jon8...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:
> "Virgil" <Vir...(a)home.esc> wrote in message
>
> news:Virgil-8F0A7F.22431423072010(a)bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>
> > In article <psudnbNgP4yS99fRnZ2dnUVZ_hqdn...(a)earthlink.com>,
> > "Jon" <jon8...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://jons-math.bravehost.com/eandpi.html
>
> > I find that you first summation is about 1.58195 which is not half of pi.
>
> > I find that you second sum works out to be about 16.4, which is not even
> > close to half of pi.
>
> It's close enough to be of significance.

That sentence is just nonsense. One can get "close" to pi/2 with any
number of finite sums.
From: Tim Little on 24 Jul 2010 22:43
On 2010-07-25, Jon <jon8338(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:
> It's close enough to be of significance.

Not really. With an 11-term sum you should be able to get much
closer than you do.

Also, why do you add 6 extra terms to your sum that *increase* the
error by a factor of more than 20? The 5-term sum is much closer to
pi/2.


- Tim
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: JSH: Prime gap equation consequences
Next: valid Indirect Euclid IP leads to twin prime proof #4.12 Correcting Math