freckles
  • freckles
Does anyone know how to show \[e=2+\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2+\frac{2}{3+\frac{3}{4+\frac{4}{5+\cdots}}}}}\]
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
katieb
  • katieb
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
freckles
  • freckles
Like showing \[\sqrt{2}=1+\frac{1}{2+\frac{1}{2+\frac{1}{2+\frac{1}{2+\cdots }}}}\] is easy like I know that I can called that whole continued fraction thingy x but then I see that whole continued fraction thingy again inside so I know I can do this: \[x=1+\frac{1}{1+x} \\ x-1=\frac{1}{x+1} \\ (x-1)(x+1)-1=0 \\ x^2-1-1=0 \\ x^2-2=0 \\ x=\sqrt{2} \text{ since } x>0\] but this one seems harder because the top number numbers are changing each time
freckles
  • freckles
a long with the side number
freckles
  • freckles
like this one is nothing like the other continued fraction I don't think I can use the same method

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
e is not algebraic, so i think the same method of solving a polynomial equation wont work for e
freckles
  • freckles
http://webserv.jcu.edu/math//vignettes/continued.htm in this link, it says euler used this technique I wonder exactly which technique they are referring to
anonymous
  • anonymous
you can probably do it with pade approximants since they are connected to generalized continued fractions
jtvatsim
  • jtvatsim
There's a similar identity and derivation given here http://www.math.binghamton.edu/dikran/478/Ch7.pdf ending at PDF page 14. Not exactly the same identity given by the OP, but both are very cool.
freckles
  • freckles
\[e^{-x}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-x)^i}{i!} \\ e^{-x}=1-x+\frac{x^2}{2}-\frac{x^3}{3!}+\cdots \\ \alpha_1=1 \\ \alpha_2=\frac{1}{x} \\ \alpha_3=\frac{2}{x^2} \\ \alpha_4=\frac{3!}{x^3} \\ \cdots \\ \alpha_n=\frac{(n-1)!}{x^{n-1}} \\ e^{-x}=\frac{1}{1}+\frac{1^2}{\frac{1}{x}-1}+\frac{\frac{1}{x^2}}{\frac{2}{x^2}-\frac{1}{x}}+\frac{\frac{4}{x^4}}{\frac{3!}{x^3}-\frac{2}{x^2}}+\cdots +\frac{\frac{(n-2)!^2}{x^{2(n-2)}}}{\frac{(n-1)!}{x^{n-1}}-\frac{(n-2)!}{x^{n-2}}}+\cdots\] trying to following the arctan(x) example in 7.6 ... and using some of the theorems above though this so far not making sense anyways... still playing with what they have
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
I'm reading euler's formula and it seems the super simple way to get that result : \[a_0+a_0a_1+\cdots+a_0a_1\cdots a_n = \dfrac{a_0}{1-\dfrac{a_1}{1+a_1-\dfrac{a_2}{1+a_2-\dfrac{\vdots}{\vdots +\dfrac{a_{n-1}}{1+a_{n-1}-\dfrac{a_n}{1+a_n}}}}}} \] Proving this is easy as induction works pretty good here
freckles
  • freckles
but deriving it will be killer probably :(
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Not at all, Base case, \(n=1\) : \[RHS = \dfrac{a_0}{1-\dfrac{a_1}{1+a_1}} = \dfrac{a_0(1+a_1)}{1+a_1-a_1}=a_0+a_0a_1=LHS\color{green}{\checkmark}\]
freckles
  • freckles
\[\text{ suppose } \\ a_0+a_0a_1+\cdots+a_0a_1\cdots a_k = \dfrac{a_0}{1-\dfrac{a_1}{1+a_1-\dfrac{a_2}{1+a_2-\dfrac{\vdots}{\vdots +\dfrac{a_{k-1}}{1+a_{k-1}-\dfrac{a_k}{1+a_k}}}}}} \\ \text{ for some integer } k \ge 0\] so we add to both sides the following: \[a_0a_1 \cdots a_k a_{k+1}\] and then we....hmmm...thinking...
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
I hope you see why proving by induction is trivial here. Its just algebra manipulation. Maybe lets use the result first : consider taylor series of \(e^x\), \[e^x = 1+1*x/1 + 1*x/1*x/2+1*x/2*x/2+x^2/3 + \cdots\]
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
compare that with the left hand side and simply plug the values : \[\begin{align}e^x&=1+1*x/1+1*x/1*x/2+\cdots\\~\\ & = \dfrac{1}{1-\dfrac{x}{1+x-\dfrac{x/2}{1+x/2-\vdots }}} \end{align}\] plugging in \(x=1\), we do get a continued fraction for \(e\) but oops! this is not what we're looking for hmm
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_continued_fraction_formula
jtvatsim
  • jtvatsim
All of these articles make appeals to "equivalence transformations." That has got to be the key to working with these...
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
*typo consider taylor series of \(e^x\), \[e^x = 1+1*x/1 + 1*x/1*x/2+1*x/1*x/2*x/3 + \cdots\]
freckles
  • freckles
\[e=\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{1+1-\frac{1}{2+1-\frac{2(1)}{3+1-\frac{3(1)}{4+1-\cdots }}}}}\]
freckles
  • freckles
and I guess we would have do another transformation to get that one continued fraction representation they had on that other site
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
oh wait, how did u get that
freckles
  • freckles
well I used the thingy you typed and just cleared the compound mini fraction in each sub-fraction if that make sense
freckles
  • freckles
I assumed the thingy you were trying to type was the thing from wikepedia
freckles
  • freckles
and then they actually have the clearing of the fractions next
freckles
  • freckles
one fraction was multiplied by 2/2 another as multiplied by 3/3 ... so on...
freckles
  • freckles
I think I hate continued fractions they are so hard to write
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
that is clever!
freckles
  • freckles
it wasn't my cleverness it was wikepedia's
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Oh I missed that from wiki, I only read the statement of theorem and got excited lol
freckles
  • freckles
yeah it was from that one link you gave me
freckles
  • freckles
but I think I need to play with fractions to see how they actually got that formula/theorem thingy
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Induction step is easy, at least for you it will be easy I'm sure...
freckles
  • freckles
ok thanks @ganeshie8 I will just be doing some playing of my own I will ask if I have any questions
freckles
  • freckles
And I'm sure I can figure it out with enough playing

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.