Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am having a problem with the final question of this exercise.

Show that $e$ is irrational (I did that). Then find the first $5$ digits in a decimal expansion of $e$ ($2.71828$).

Can you approximate $e$ by a rational number with error $< 10^{-1000}$ ?

Thank you in advance

share|improve this question
Yes, you can. Do you need to give such a number? Do you know about continued fractions? –  Gregor Bruns Nov 14 '12 at 12:10
I don't think I need to find the actual number. But I think I have to just prove its existence. I never actually manipulated with continued fractions –  user43418 Nov 14 '12 at 12:12
This question is very unclear. It could mean one of three things: 1: Can e be approximated by such a rational? Answer: Yes, obviously -- every real number can. 2: Do you know how to approximate it? Answer: Yes, in principle. 3: Find such a rational. Answer: Give me a few moments... –  TonyK Nov 14 '12 at 14:31
I think that a more interesting question is whether there is a good short rational approximation to e, analogous to 355/113 for $\pi$. Approximating e to absurd accuracy is just donkeywork for a computer. What puzzles me here is: if you are a good enough mathematician to prove that e is irrational, why would you ask such a naive question? –  John Bentin Nov 14 '12 at 14:45

3 Answers 3

In the standard proof that $e$ is irrational, one first proves that $$ 0 < e -s_n < \frac1{n!n} \qquad\mbox{where}\qquad s_n = \sum_{k=0}^n \frac1{k!} $$ So you only need to find $n$ such that $\frac1{n!n}< 10^{-1000}$ or $n!>10^{1000}$. You can use Stirling's approximation for that I guess. Wolfram Alpha says $n=450$ suffices.

share|improve this answer
I would think that stating that such an n exists would probably suffice for this question. One could show the Taylor expansion for e has an Nth term such that all n > N terms will be smaller than 10^{-1000}. –  user12345121212 Nov 14 '12 at 12:16

I don't think we have to really know anything about $e$ to say that we can approximate it with a rational number with an error less then $10^{-1000}$.

Say $e=a_0.a_1 a_2 \ldots$

There is clearly a rational number $q=a_0.a_1 \ldots a_{1001}$ and $|q-e|\leq10^{-1000}$ (note that the difference is bounded by a geometric sum)

share|improve this answer
Note that the question asks for an error less than $10^{-1000}$. –  robjohn Nov 15 '12 at 14:36
@robjohn - thanks for pointing that out, I edited accordingly. –  Belgi Nov 16 '12 at 23:25

If 2.71828 are the first few digits of $e$ the we have $$2.71828 < e < 2.71829$$ Put $q = 271828/100000$ we deduce $$0 < e-q < 0.00001 = 10^{-5}.$$

share|improve this answer
What does this answer ? –  Belgi Nov 14 '12 at 12:51
@Belgi, think a bit. it shows how to solve the question asked –  sperners lemma Nov 14 '12 at 15:51
@spernerslemma: does it give any more of a hint than do either of the previous answers? –  robjohn Nov 14 '12 at 16:42
@Belgi: extrapolate by changing 5 to 1000, but don't write $e$ to 1000 places :-) –  robjohn Nov 15 '12 at 14:33
@Belgi: the question is "Can you approximate $e$..." not "Approximate $e$..." No answer actually computes a rational approximation of $e$ to an error of less than $10^{-1000}$. –  robjohn Nov 17 '12 at 5:11

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.