- --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:

> 17 131101 0.6948838285968673741945871092

Looks like an expensive method of approximating log(2) ?

> 18 262147 0.6944460786798661063812187741

> 19 524309 0.6969871254592594758140428033

> 20 1048583 0.6992402515337114838314592173

> 21 2097169 0.7007186928388776062866463444

> 22 4194319 0.6970925620012833876499535047

> 23 8388617 0.6951323183116127789119946883

> 24 16777259 0.6948711428730801610212743660

> 25 33554467 0.6956608736980247707005160260

David (with no sound basis for this guess) - Le 2012-11-11 13:11, djbroadhurst a écrit :
>> 25 33554467 0.6956608736980247707005160260

hmmmm you mean ln(2) :-)

> Looks like an expensive method of approximating log(2) ?

> David (with no sound basis for this guess)

Yann (who wonders what kind of relationship

there can be between ln(2) and the threshold

voltage of a bipolar transistor...

damn coincidences) - --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,

whygee@... asked:

> hmmmm you mean ln(2) :-)

ln(2) is just a fussy way of writing log(2) for the

benefit people who think that God has 10 fingers.

In fact She has exp(1) fingers :-)

David - --- On Sun, 11/11/12, djbroadhurst <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Phil Carmody <thefatphil@...> wrote:

That value went through my head too, certainly. If it is log(2), I would hope that there is a sound reason for it to be so.

> > 17 131101 0.6948838285968673741945871092

> > 18 262147 0.6944460786798661063812187741

> > 19 524309 0.6969871254592594758140428033

> > 20 1048583 0.6992402515337114838314592173

> > 21 2097169 0.7007186928388776062866463444

> > 22 4194319 0.6970925620012833876499535047

> > 23 8388617 0.6951323183116127789119946883

> > 24 16777259 0.6948711428730801610212743660

> > 25 33554467 0.6956608736980247707005160260

>

> Looks like an expensive method of approximating log(2) ?

>

> David (with no sound basis for this guess)

Phil