Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2022 February 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematics desk
< February 11 << Jan | February | Mar >> Current desk >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


February 12[edit]

Proofs of rational bounds on π[edit]

In Proof that 22/7 exceeds pi a very pretty integral is given:

which is evaluated via rather tedious polynomial long division, but simplifies nicely. is one of the continued fraction convergents to , but the analogous integrals for the next convergents (, , etc.) are far more complicated—and they must be, since there must be a factor of 53 and 113 in each antiderivative, respectively. My question is simply whether this is a grand coincidence. The natural generalization (replacing the exponent 4 with , n>1) never seems to give a "good" approximation in Diophantine terms. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether it is a coincidence that the largest prime factor of the denominators of the next convergents is so much higher? A few steps later, in we have so there is not some rule that the largest prime factor must keep increasing. In the continued-fraction expansion of we even have a convergent  --Lambiam 23:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: Indeed there's no bound on the convergents' prime factors; I was just noting that for pi in particular, it would be impossible to achieve a value of, for example, with something like , with being a polynomial with integer coefficients and . My question was more about intuition for why the long division magically simplifies to such a low common denominator; in the original integral, the antiderivative's coefficients' GCD is or something like that.
But as a tangent, your example of makes me wonder if there are low-degree rational functions that could be used to obtain those approximations too. I'm sure there are, but I don't see a systematic way to find them. Ovinus (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably read the Stephen Lucas paper linked to in the article. (Amazingly, you don't have to go through a paywall to get to it.) I think the answer is yes, it is (more or less) a grand coincidence. The Lucas paper does mention that some "experimenting" was needed to produce integrals for 355/113 - pi, which I interpret as meaning that the method used would not be easily generalized. --RDBury (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]