Ranter
Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or  rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power realtime personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Comments

I only take credit for discovering bruce's constant.
The new way of deriving bruce's constant allows us to calculate e. Wouldn't have ever stumbled on this connection if not for the authors Sloane and Hiroaki, and of course the OIS site.
Only question left is to determine how fast this converges on e. I hear taylor series is the fastest that existed, but i'm unfamiliar with it.
Anyone willing to lend a hand? 
So apparently it converges in four terms to an error less (1.0004) than or equal to the error of the taylor series convergence of e for the same number of terms (< 1.001)
It's as fast or faster than the taylor series! 
retoor101461yPlease tell me that you work for ASML or something. What kinda software do you make for a living?

@iiii this actually isn't an april fools or delusional shitpost for a change.
Go try the math for yourself, its legit a new way to calculate e. 
JsonBoa29241y@retoor anything that needs linear optimization.
That includes logistics, factory and supply chains, networks and telecommunications, hardware design, or even plain old accounting and finance.
There is a load of great jobs in this field, but to work on that you kinda need to have a mathematics background.
At least enough to get this kind of thing that started as one of @Wisecrack 's jokes. 
@retoor I'm actually just a short order cook.
I can't make a frontend but I do make a good omelette. 
@iiii maths wrong. fails to converge. Just took a few extra terms and had a point that came very close to e within a tight error bound.
oh well. still works as a quick aproximator.
as always I leave my mistakes up. 
iiii92441y@Wisecrack using roots for calculation isn't really a good way of calculating anything. Too damn complex to calculate roots themselves. Simple fraction sequences work MUCH better

@iiii see this is why I like you. Only a true friend would be that truly honest with me.

iiii92441y@Wisecrack I'm just an unfun picky nerd who points out unnecessary details that no one cares about. Which irritates everyone he encounters. 🤷♂️
Related Rants
Remember the post about bruce's constant?(4.5099806905005)
Well apparently theres a convergent series for it found all the way back in 2015.
Apparently its an actual thing. Which connects e to the square root of this series.
And it converges on (bruce1)**0.5.
I confirmed it myself.
The two people who found the series that converges are N. J. A. Sloane and Hiroaki Yamanouchi
Thank you Sloane and Hiroaki!
The actual formula is a series of embedded square roots with the repeating numbers 1,4,2,8,5,7
like so...
sqrt(1+sqrt(4+sqrt(2+sqrt(8+sqrt...
What this means is you can find e using this series.
All you do is run the series, raise by a power of 2, add 1, calculate J and K like so
J = log(2, 1.333333333333333) / log(2, 2)
K = log(2, 1.333333333333333) / log(2, 3)
then calculate (J+K)(bruce1)
and out pops our buddy e:
2.7182818284591317
I guess I bullshitted myself for so long, that I didn't believe people like scor when they said they legit witnessed by math skills grow.
Or maybe a blind squirrel occasionally DOES find a nut.
Pretty cool find either way.
rant
math