continued fraction program

But I like convergent better. There's a reason.

There's a pair of recurrences related to successive numerators and denominators (I can refer you to some pages on this, easily) that is used to prove the fact that continued fractions, even in the case of irrationals such as pi, e, and various sqrt()s, MUST "converge" towards that particular value. The numerator sequence is often denoted by p(i) or P(i) and the denominator sequence is often denoted by q(i) or Q(i) in literature I've seen. It turns out that the even pairs are always less and the odd pairs always more, but in exactly this way:

p[0]/q[0] < p[2]/q[2] < ... < x < ... < p[3]/q[3] < p[1]/q[1]

This fact is developed through mathematical induction. I can describe it here, but most folks wouldn't care. (However, I did post something about it a week ago or so in sci.electronics.design.) The main point, though, is that the value is bounded by the even and odd convergents and trapped tighter and tighter as i goes towards infinity. Which, to me, makes the term very appropriate. Approximant just doesn't carry the meaning so well, to me.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan
Loading thread data ...

25.4 is 254/10 AIUI the value 25.4mm was chosen for the inch in 1959 because it was close to and between the values the Brittish and Americans were using for the inch

prior to this US and Canadian miles were different sizes which was fun for surveyors.

Reply to
Jasen Betts

LOL

formatting link

"This left NGS in the position of not wanting to mandate which foot (U.S. Survey or International) a state should use. So, NGS left that decision to the individual states. Currently, NGS publishes SPCs for 7 states using the U.S. Survey Foot conversion factor, 1 state using the International Foot conversion factor, and 42 states using only meters, not feet, for SPCs. Based on STATE legislation we have or know about, 24 states have legislated the U.S. Survey Foot, 8 states have legislated the International Foot, and 18 states have no legislation on which conversion factor must be used."

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

cally

it

n
C

.)

For

h

he

t

e.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-55,118.110 ppm

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A07,874.016 ppm

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -2,624.672 ppm

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 463.177 ppm

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-342.349 ppm

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 exact

What, you think someone had a warehouse full of 127-tooth gears they wanted to get rid of? :-). 127 is a prime number.

25.6mm/inch would match 256/10 and 256 is not a prime number, it is divisible by 2 and 4 and 8 and 16 and 32 and 64 and 128. 25.5mm/inch would match 255/10 and 255 is not a prime number, it is divisible by 3 and 5 and 17.

Those would've been more inspired choices if you wanted to use commonly-available gears.

Tim.

Reply to
Tim Shoppa

Other than 355/113 ~ pi, I always liked that sqrt(3/4) ~ 13/15.

It turns out

sqrt(4/5) is near 17/19 sqrt(5/6) is near 21/23 sqrt(6/7) is near 25/27

and so on. This is very useful when picking out gear ratios or divider ratios etc.

Tim.

Reply to
Tim Shoppa

A good slide rule will give you lots of rational approximations...

Reply to
mac

[1] c:\>ratapprx 0.8660254037844386 Usage: ratvalue [number [maxnumerator]] number defaults to PI, maxnumerator to 500 Rational approximation to 0.866025403784439 1 / 1 = 1.000000000000000 with error 0.133974596215561 4 / 5 = 0.800000000000000 with error 0.066025403784439 5 / 6 = 0.833333333333333 with error 0.032692070451105 6 / 7 = 0.857142857142857 with error 0.008882546641581 13 / 15 = 0.866666666666667 with error 0.000641262882228 45 / 52 = 0.865384615384615 with error 0.000640788399823 58 / 67 = 0.865671641791045 with error 0.000353761993394 71 / 82 = 0.865853658536585 with error 0.000171745247853 84 / 97 = 0.865979381443299 with error 0.000046022341140 181 / 209 = 0.866028708133971 with error 0.000003304349533

See my published code earlier in the thread. Note the sharp improvements at 13/15, 71/82, 84/97, and 181/209.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

now there's another compelling argument for the USofA to pull their collective finger out and go metric .......

Reply to
who where

BobW ha scritto:

sure, Dan Brown know it.

regards

--
  lowcost
Reply to
lowcost

It has to do with the number of barleycorns needed to circle the earth. Or maybe the spacing of pins on a dual in-line package.

Reply to
mac

Well worth reading is:

formatting link

Reply to
The Phantom

No, there's no significance at all. The 25.4 value is a close approximation, but not exact. A meter originally was some even fraction of the distance between the equator and the north pole (I think), based on the crude measurements available at the time. The foot is based on the length of some famous person's foot. A meter is approximately 39.37 inches, and the inverse of that, with some scaling is ~25.4 mm/inch

RB

Reply to
Rube Bumpkin

10,000 kilometers, or 1E7 meters, from the equator to the north pole along the Paris meridian. Later measurements and a better understanding of the shape of this lump have refined the distance somewhat but that's still a good approximation to three sig figs.
--
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA
Reply to
Rich Webb

25.4 is the Exact value. It wasn't at one time but today it is the Exact value.

RogerN

Reply to
RogerN

I read somewhere that, in the early days of IC layout, the x-acto + rubylith times, they used 25.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Found some info on this.

formatting link

International inch Effective July 1, 1959, the United States and countries of the British Commonwealth defined the length of the international yard to be 0.9144 meters. [1] Consequently, the international inch is defined to be equal to

25.4 millimeters.

The international standard symbol for inch is in (see ISO 31-1, Annex A). In some cases, the inch is denoted by a double prime, which is often approximated by double quotes, and the foot by a prime, which is often approximated by an apostrophe.

On what basis is one inch exactly equal to 25.4 mm? Has the imperial inch been adjusted to give this exact fit and if so when? (FAQ - Length) The (international) inch has been exactly 25.4 mm since July 1959. At this point in time the (international) yard was redefined as 0.9144 metre - until this time the ratio between the US yard and the metre was different to the ratio between the UK yard and the metre. For more information, see Engineering Metrology by K J Hume (2 ed) Macdonald London 1967. The American inch changed by 2 millionths of an inch and the UK inch by 1.7 millionths of an inch. The international inch falls mid way between the old UK and US inch.

References:

a.. The Yard Unit of Length Nature Vol. 200 No 4908 pp 730-732 23 Nov 1963 b.. The United Kingdom standards of the yard in terms of the metre (British Applied Journal of Physics)

------ Standardization of the Inch Don Hillger, PhD Most people do not realize that the standardization of the inch for worldwide use did not occur until 1959. Prior to that the inch had been defined differently among the major inch-using countries: the U.S., Great Britain, and Canada. Each of those countries had their own definition of the inch, and in each case the inch was defined in terms of metric units, the only set of internationally-accepted standards of length, mass, etc.

In the U.S. the metric system was made legal for all purposes, by the Metric Act of 1866, long before any law defined our common U.S. measures. Later, the Mendenhall Order of 1893 defined our common non-metric units in terms of metric units. That law regarded metric units as the fundamental and internationally-accepted standards for the U.S. It was this law that formally defined the inch based on the conversion factor of 39.37 inches = 1 meter as stated in the Act of 1866. This ratio gives an inch approximately equal to 25.40005 mm.

In Great Britain the National Physical Laboratory made comparisons of the Imperial Standard Yard to the International Meter, which yielded differing values for the inch over the years. The 1922 value of 25.399956 mm per inch by was arbitrarily selected for use in calibrating the most precise measuring devices.

The Canadian Parliament in 1951 established their inch based on a legal definition of the yard as 0.9144 m. This ratio defined the inch as 25.4 mm, a third definition of the inch. The Canadian inch was about 2 parts in 106 smaller than the U.S. standard and about 2 parts in 106 larger than the British standard.

The differences in definitions of the inch were enough to cause confusion, inefficiencies, and difficulties during World War II in attempts to interchange various precision products. It was not until later, in 1959, that the definition of the inch was standardized worldwide as 25.4 millimeters exactly.

But that agreement has not completely solved all the problems caused by differing values for the inch. A problem still exists for the foot, where the international foot (based on the 25.4 mm inch) and the survey foot (based on the 25.40005 mm inch) are both still in use. The Coast and Geodetic Survey continues to use the survey foot, whereas the rest of industry uses the 25.4 mm inch. This leaves us with two definitions of the mile, one based on the international foot and the other based on the survey foot. Although this may not seem like much, it causes the two miles to differ by about 3.2 mm (1/8 inch), or in 100 miles to differ by about 32 cm (over one foot)!

Reply to
RogerN

Well I never! Was the number of furlongs per fortnight changed at the same time or is that the same as it always has been ;-)

formatting link

-- Chris Burrows CFB Software Armaide v2.0: Helping you to develop reliable ARM software

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Burrows

A little later on, say 1983?

formatting link

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

The way i was told, that a number of men coming out of a church were lined up toe-to-heel and the total length divided by the number of men became the foot; that number may have been ten.

Reply to
Robert Baer

Except in Powerpoint, where it was 2.4. I see they've fixed this.

formatting link

Reply to
mac

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.