How to compute Euler constant $(e^x)$ to its any power.












1












$begingroup$


How to compute $e^x$ ($2.71218...$) to its any power with any shortcut or a method.
I want to know a method to calculate in big powers like $e^{50}$ not small powers, For eg-$0.02$ (using Taylor series or Feymenn method.) If you want to give any alternative method prescribed above for finding small powers, You could give.






exponential-function







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Maybe you could use $e^{x+y}=e^xe^y$ and a method for small powers. For example $e^{50} = prod_{i=1}^{500} e^{0.1}$.
    $endgroup$
    – humanStampedist
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:12






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the Feymenn method in this context? Can you provide a link?
    $endgroup$
    – callculus
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:16






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Maybe calculate $x=e^{50/64}$ by the usual methods; then to calculate $x^2, x^4, x^8, x^{16}, x^{32}, x^{64}=e^{50}$ requires only one additional multiplication each.
    $endgroup$
    – MJD
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:20






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @IvoTerek: That is a dreadful method in real life. You need so many terms that (1) it takes forever, and (2) rounding errors accumulate unacceptably. (And it's totally useless if $x$ is large and negative.)
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Many comments without any reaction of the OP.
    $endgroup$
    – callculus
    Dec 4 '18 at 17:23
















1












$begingroup$


How to compute $e^x$ ($2.71218...$) to its any power with any shortcut or a method.
I want to know a method to calculate in big powers like $e^{50}$ not small powers, For eg-$0.02$ (using Taylor series or Feymenn method.) If you want to give any alternative method prescribed above for finding small powers, You could give.






exponential-function







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Maybe you could use $e^{x+y}=e^xe^y$ and a method for small powers. For example $e^{50} = prod_{i=1}^{500} e^{0.1}$.
    $endgroup$
    – humanStampedist
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:12






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the Feymenn method in this context? Can you provide a link?
    $endgroup$
    – callculus
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:16






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Maybe calculate $x=e^{50/64}$ by the usual methods; then to calculate $x^2, x^4, x^8, x^{16}, x^{32}, x^{64}=e^{50}$ requires only one additional multiplication each.
    $endgroup$
    – MJD
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:20






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @IvoTerek: That is a dreadful method in real life. You need so many terms that (1) it takes forever, and (2) rounding errors accumulate unacceptably. (And it's totally useless if $x$ is large and negative.)
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Many comments without any reaction of the OP.
    $endgroup$
    – callculus
    Dec 4 '18 at 17:23














1












1








1





$begingroup$


How to compute $e^x$ ($2.71218...$) to its any power with any shortcut or a method.
I want to know a method to calculate in big powers like $e^{50}$ not small powers, For eg-$0.02$ (using Taylor series or Feymenn method.) If you want to give any alternative method prescribed above for finding small powers, You could give.






exponential-function







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




How to compute $e^x$ ($2.71218...$) to its any power with any shortcut or a method.
I want to know a method to calculate in big powers like $e^{50}$ not small powers, For eg-$0.02$ (using Taylor series or Feymenn method.) If you want to give any alternative method prescribed above for finding small powers, You could give.






exponential-function




exponential-function






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 4 '18 at 15:18









Key Flex

8,28261233




8,28261233










asked Dec 4 '18 at 15:03









Piyush ChoudhuryPiyush Choudhury

63




63








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Maybe you could use $e^{x+y}=e^xe^y$ and a method for small powers. For example $e^{50} = prod_{i=1}^{500} e^{0.1}$.
    $endgroup$
    – humanStampedist
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:12






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the Feymenn method in this context? Can you provide a link?
    $endgroup$
    – callculus
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:16






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Maybe calculate $x=e^{50/64}$ by the usual methods; then to calculate $x^2, x^4, x^8, x^{16}, x^{32}, x^{64}=e^{50}$ requires only one additional multiplication each.
    $endgroup$
    – MJD
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:20






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @IvoTerek: That is a dreadful method in real life. You need so many terms that (1) it takes forever, and (2) rounding errors accumulate unacceptably. (And it's totally useless if $x$ is large and negative.)
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Many comments without any reaction of the OP.
    $endgroup$
    – callculus
    Dec 4 '18 at 17:23














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Maybe you could use $e^{x+y}=e^xe^y$ and a method for small powers. For example $e^{50} = prod_{i=1}^{500} e^{0.1}$.
    $endgroup$
    – humanStampedist
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:12






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the Feymenn method in this context? Can you provide a link?
    $endgroup$
    – callculus
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:16






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Maybe calculate $x=e^{50/64}$ by the usual methods; then to calculate $x^2, x^4, x^8, x^{16}, x^{32}, x^{64}=e^{50}$ requires only one additional multiplication each.
    $endgroup$
    – MJD
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:20






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @IvoTerek: That is a dreadful method in real life. You need so many terms that (1) it takes forever, and (2) rounding errors accumulate unacceptably. (And it's totally useless if $x$ is large and negative.)
    $endgroup$
    – TonyK
    Dec 4 '18 at 15:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Many comments without any reaction of the OP.
    $endgroup$
    – callculus
    Dec 4 '18 at 17:23








1




1




$begingroup$
Maybe you could use $e^{x+y}=e^xe^y$ and a method for small powers. For example $e^{50} = prod_{i=1}^{500} e^{0.1}$.
$endgroup$
– humanStampedist
Dec 4 '18 at 15:12




$begingroup$
Maybe you could use $e^{x+y}=e^xe^y$ and a method for small powers. For example $e^{50} = prod_{i=1}^{500} e^{0.1}$.
$endgroup$
– humanStampedist
Dec 4 '18 at 15:12




2




2




$begingroup$
What is the Feymenn method in this context? Can you provide a link?
$endgroup$
– callculus
Dec 4 '18 at 15:16




$begingroup$
What is the Feymenn method in this context? Can you provide a link?
$endgroup$
– callculus
Dec 4 '18 at 15:16




2




2




$begingroup$
Maybe calculate $x=e^{50/64}$ by the usual methods; then to calculate $x^2, x^4, x^8, x^{16}, x^{32}, x^{64}=e^{50}$ requires only one additional multiplication each.
$endgroup$
– MJD
Dec 4 '18 at 15:20




$begingroup$
Maybe calculate $x=e^{50/64}$ by the usual methods; then to calculate $x^2, x^4, x^8, x^{16}, x^{32}, x^{64}=e^{50}$ requires only one additional multiplication each.
$endgroup$
– MJD
Dec 4 '18 at 15:20




4




4




$begingroup$
@IvoTerek: That is a dreadful method in real life. You need so many terms that (1) it takes forever, and (2) rounding errors accumulate unacceptably. (And it's totally useless if $x$ is large and negative.)
$endgroup$
– TonyK
Dec 4 '18 at 15:24






$begingroup$
@IvoTerek: That is a dreadful method in real life. You need so many terms that (1) it takes forever, and (2) rounding errors accumulate unacceptably. (And it's totally useless if $x$ is large and negative.)
$endgroup$
– TonyK
Dec 4 '18 at 15:24






1




1




$begingroup$
Many comments without any reaction of the OP.
$endgroup$
– callculus
Dec 4 '18 at 17:23




$begingroup$
Many comments without any reaction of the OP.
$endgroup$
– callculus
Dec 4 '18 at 17:23










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

Since
$$
cdots ;{4 over {10}} < {{21} over {50}} < log _{10} e = 0.43429 cdots < {{22} over {50}} < {4 over 9} < {5 over {10}}; cdots
$$
and you can find many other better bounds, depending on the precision that you need.



Then for instance you can get
$$
10^{,21} < e^{,50} < 10^{,22}
$$
or better
$$
e^{,50} approx 10^{,21} cdot 10^{,{{14} over {1000}}50} = 10^{,21} cdot 10^{,{7 over {10}}}
= 10^{,22} cdot 10^{, - {3 over {10}}} approx 10^{,22} {1 over {root 3 of {10} }} approx {1 over 2}10^{,22}
$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025686%2fhow-to-compute-euler-constant-ex-to-its-any-power%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    Since
    $$
    cdots ;{4 over {10}} < {{21} over {50}} < log _{10} e = 0.43429 cdots < {{22} over {50}} < {4 over 9} < {5 over {10}}; cdots
    $$
    and you can find many other better bounds, depending on the precision that you need.



    Then for instance you can get
    $$
    10^{,21} < e^{,50} < 10^{,22}
    $$
    or better
    $$
    e^{,50} approx 10^{,21} cdot 10^{,{{14} over {1000}}50} = 10^{,21} cdot 10^{,{7 over {10}}}
    = 10^{,22} cdot 10^{, - {3 over {10}}} approx 10^{,22} {1 over {root 3 of {10} }} approx {1 over 2}10^{,22}
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      Since
      $$
      cdots ;{4 over {10}} < {{21} over {50}} < log _{10} e = 0.43429 cdots < {{22} over {50}} < {4 over 9} < {5 over {10}}; cdots
      $$
      and you can find many other better bounds, depending on the precision that you need.



      Then for instance you can get
      $$
      10^{,21} < e^{,50} < 10^{,22}
      $$
      or better
      $$
      e^{,50} approx 10^{,21} cdot 10^{,{{14} over {1000}}50} = 10^{,21} cdot 10^{,{7 over {10}}}
      = 10^{,22} cdot 10^{, - {3 over {10}}} approx 10^{,22} {1 over {root 3 of {10} }} approx {1 over 2}10^{,22}
      $$






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        Since
        $$
        cdots ;{4 over {10}} < {{21} over {50}} < log _{10} e = 0.43429 cdots < {{22} over {50}} < {4 over 9} < {5 over {10}}; cdots
        $$
        and you can find many other better bounds, depending on the precision that you need.



        Then for instance you can get
        $$
        10^{,21} < e^{,50} < 10^{,22}
        $$
        or better
        $$
        e^{,50} approx 10^{,21} cdot 10^{,{{14} over {1000}}50} = 10^{,21} cdot 10^{,{7 over {10}}}
        = 10^{,22} cdot 10^{, - {3 over {10}}} approx 10^{,22} {1 over {root 3 of {10} }} approx {1 over 2}10^{,22}
        $$






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Since
        $$
        cdots ;{4 over {10}} < {{21} over {50}} < log _{10} e = 0.43429 cdots < {{22} over {50}} < {4 over 9} < {5 over {10}}; cdots
        $$
        and you can find many other better bounds, depending on the precision that you need.



        Then for instance you can get
        $$
        10^{,21} < e^{,50} < 10^{,22}
        $$
        or better
        $$
        e^{,50} approx 10^{,21} cdot 10^{,{{14} over {1000}}50} = 10^{,21} cdot 10^{,{7 over {10}}}
        = 10^{,22} cdot 10^{, - {3 over {10}}} approx 10^{,22} {1 over {root 3 of {10} }} approx {1 over 2}10^{,22}
        $$







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 4 '18 at 17:11









        G CabG Cab

        19.7k31339




        19.7k31339






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025686%2fhow-to-compute-euler-constant-ex-to-its-any-power%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

            Image
            3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
            Read more

            Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

            Image
            up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
            Read more

            Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

            Image
            0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
            Read more