Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Consider the series generated by Harlan J. Brothers's method for the number $e$

Can they be improved again and again or is there a limit so there exists a BEST approximation to $e$?

share|cite|improve this question
The paper is available on Harlan J. Brothers's homepage. – Martin Jun 14 '13 at 14:23

It depends on what you mean by "improved" and "BEST." The paper @Martin referenced discusses "an algebraic assessment based on the decimal place accuracy (d.p.a.) that is gained from a given number of terms; the greater the d.p.a., the faster the series converges." This is different from the run-time cost of the computation for which a smaller number of processor operations indicates that the algorithm is inherently more efficient.

While the combination of T terms results in new "compressed" terms containing a polynomial of degree T-1, the algorithm appears reasonably linear (to at least T=100). Computing 30,000 terms with Newton's method achieves 121,287 correct digits. Obtaining the same accuracy by computing 3,000 terms with t=10 requires very close to 1/10 the time - it's 9.9 times as fast (these computations are done in Mathematica 9). Computing just 300 terms with T=100 is 96 times as fast. However, for T=1000, things slow down - 30 terms are only 705 times as fast. To my knowledge, there has been no evaluation of the true computational efficiency of the approach.

Personally, I find value in the aesthetic appeal of expressions resulting from combinations that use low values of T. Here is a more comprehensive list of approximations that supplements the paper:

In short, Newton's series can indeed be algebraically improved again and again. The extent to which such "improvements" can continue to be of practical value is a different matter. For proven efficiency, you can reference the work of the computational wizards cited here:

share|cite|improve this answer

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.