3
$\begingroup$

I was working on the approximation of $y=$ $e^x$ at $x=x_2$ in terms of its known value at a neighbour point $x=x_1$.

Approximation by derivatives gives us this: $y_2$ =$e^{x_2}=e^{x_1}+(x_2-x_1)e^{x_1}$=$y_1+(x_2-x_1)y_1$

I was trying to get something even more accurate and I've come up with this:

$lny_2$= $x_1(\frac{lnx_2}{lnx_1})^{lnx_1}$ where $lnx$ is the natural logarithm.

I've checked that this one is more accurate. It's less accurate than the derivative formula for $x_1=1,2,3$ but for higher $x_1>3$, it gives a better approximation. 1. Is my formula some special case of some already discovered approximation rule or have I come up with something new? 2. Is it useless? I've derived approximations of other functions also but the one for $e^x$ was the least messy.

Update: I just checked that it's more accurate even when $x_1=3$. By taking $x_1=3$, I tried approximating $e^{3.5}$. The actual value is 33.1. The derivative approximation gave 30.11 and my formula gave 31.98. For somewhat large $x$, it is far better than the derivative. Try approximating $e^{12}$ by taking $x_1=10$ by derivative and by my method.

Update:Oh, I just figured out that my formula is equivalent to saying $x_2$=$x_1(\frac{lnx_2}{lnx_1})^{lnx_1}$ , where $x_1$ and $x_2$ are any two neighbouring numbers. So, I think it's useless then. But still is it a new relation between two neighbouring numbers and their logarithms?.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ...if I may note, your formula already fails for negative values. $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art Jan 30 '17 at 13:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Simply Beautiful Art: I'm not much good in mathematics but I think for negative values, using the modulus inside the log should work. And even if it doesn't, then we can use $e^{-x}=\frac{1}{e^{x}}$ . And i assure you that it works better than the derivative for positive values. Try it in your calculator $\endgroup$ – Dove Jan 30 '17 at 13:15
  • $\begingroup$ Well, your using non-trivial information. That is, how to take a log without calculating the exponential function first? $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art Jan 30 '17 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Simply Beautiful art: I didn't understand that comment. $\endgroup$ – Dove Jan 30 '17 at 13:59
  • $\begingroup$ I'm just wondering how you calculated the natural logarithms. $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art Jan 30 '17 at 14:02
2
$\begingroup$

Iam not sure what you are looking for but you could use the two formulas $$\mathrm e^x = \lim_{n\to \infty}\left(1+ \frac{x}{n} \right)^n \quad \text{or} \quad \mathrm e^x = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!} \qquad (x\in \mathbf R)$$ to approximate $\mathrm e^x$ for given $x\in \mathbf R$. Let $x_2 \in \mathbf R$ and $x_2 \in \mathrm B(x_1,r)$ where $r>0$ is very small. If you write $\mathrm e^{x_2} = \mathrm e^{x_2 -x_1} \mathrm e^{x_1}$ you are able to approximate $\mathrm e^{x_2}$ by $$\mathrm e^{x_2} = \mathrm e^{x_1}\left(1+ \frac{x_2-x_1}{N} \right)^N \quad \text{or} \quad \mathrm e^{x_2} = \mathrm e^{x_1} \sum_{n=1}^N\frac{(x_2-x_1)^n}{n!},$$ where $N\in \mathbf N$ is large.

[The second approximation will be better than the first one - this is why some people prefer to define $\mathrm e$ as $\mathrm e := \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}$.]

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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