[Rick]

I mean, I'm in 10th grade math and trying to learn some stuff on my own time, but by all means rip me to shreds

If you're teaching yourself something then don't be so quick to defend yourself? (Sorry if you felt like I was out to get you but it just didn't look like you put any effort into checking the expression or really reading/understanding limits.

If you really want to use a limit they're quite easy but they're often not useful, and for this you have to do some unpleasant defining just to express the limit, and the only real way you can define the sum of the sequence is with the infinite sum you put first.



Yes limits are good for explaining some things like calculus, but you don't need to force them into anything.

Hopefully you learned something in your own time

[Adorapuff]

If you're teaching yourself something then don't be so quick to defend yourself? (Sorry if you felt like I was out to get you but it just didn't look like you put any effort into checking the expression or really reading/understanding limits.

If you really want to use a limit they're quite easy but they're often not useful, and for this you have to do some unpleasant defining just to express the limit, and the only real way you can define the sum of the sequence is with the infinite sum you put first.



Yes limits are good for explaining some things like calculus, but you don't need to force them into anything.

Hopefully you learned something in your own time

For calculating e wouldn't it be better to use something like (1 + 1/n)^n instead of using those infinite for loops?

[Rick]

For calculating e wouldn't it be better to use something like (1 + 1/n)^n instead of using those infinite for loops?

I'm not sure, on the one hand the for loop approaches e a lot faster than (1+1/n)^n but as n gets large (1+1/n)^n requires a lot less operations.

[Eclipse]

>most accurate
>essentially just cut off the end and don't round

Not true.

If you have a number, say 0.449, and you round it to 2 decimal places, it'd be 0.45, much closer to the true value than if you "just cut it off at the end" and put it as 0.44.

[Inori]

>most accurate
>essentially just cut off the end and don't round

Not true.

If you have a number, say 0.449, and you round it to 2 decimal places, it'd be 0.45, much closer to the true value than if you "just cut it off at the end" and put it as 0.44.

If you're continuing the sequence, cutting off instead of rounding makes sense. If you have 2.71828 rounded to 2.7183 and get 2.718281 on the next iteration, they average to 2.7182905, which is entirely incorrect and totally throws off the rest of the program.

Rounding on the last cycle makes sense, but not otherwise.