Approximating $frac {log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}$ to a rational number












8












$begingroup$


I'm making a phone game, and I need to approximate $frac {log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}$ to a rational number $p/q$.

I wish $p$ and $q$ small enough. For example, I don't want $p$, $qapprox 10^7$; it's way too much for my code.



In the game, there's two way to upgrade ability. Type A gives an additional $50%$ increase at once. and type B gives $25%$.

What I want to know is how many times of upgrade $(x,y)$ provides the same additional increase. So what I've done is solve $(3/2)^x = (5/4)^y$ respect to $frac xy$.



Can you provide me a way to construct sequence $p_n$, $q_n$ which approximate the real number?

Thank you in advance.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
    $endgroup$
    – amsmath
    Mar 24 at 2:19






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Mar 24 at 2:21






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
    $endgroup$
    – user647486
    Mar 24 at 2:21












  • $begingroup$
    try 82/149 ........
    $endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Mar 24 at 2:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
    $endgroup$
    – Minus One-Twelfth
    Mar 24 at 2:32
















8












$begingroup$


I'm making a phone game, and I need to approximate $frac {log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}$ to a rational number $p/q$.

I wish $p$ and $q$ small enough. For example, I don't want $p$, $qapprox 10^7$; it's way too much for my code.



In the game, there's two way to upgrade ability. Type A gives an additional $50%$ increase at once. and type B gives $25%$.

What I want to know is how many times of upgrade $(x,y)$ provides the same additional increase. So what I've done is solve $(3/2)^x = (5/4)^y$ respect to $frac xy$.



Can you provide me a way to construct sequence $p_n$, $q_n$ which approximate the real number?

Thank you in advance.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
    $endgroup$
    – amsmath
    Mar 24 at 2:19






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Mar 24 at 2:21






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
    $endgroup$
    – user647486
    Mar 24 at 2:21












  • $begingroup$
    try 82/149 ........
    $endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Mar 24 at 2:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
    $endgroup$
    – Minus One-Twelfth
    Mar 24 at 2:32














8












8








8


3



$begingroup$


I'm making a phone game, and I need to approximate $frac {log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}$ to a rational number $p/q$.

I wish $p$ and $q$ small enough. For example, I don't want $p$, $qapprox 10^7$; it's way too much for my code.



In the game, there's two way to upgrade ability. Type A gives an additional $50%$ increase at once. and type B gives $25%$.

What I want to know is how many times of upgrade $(x,y)$ provides the same additional increase. So what I've done is solve $(3/2)^x = (5/4)^y$ respect to $frac xy$.



Can you provide me a way to construct sequence $p_n$, $q_n$ which approximate the real number?

Thank you in advance.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I'm making a phone game, and I need to approximate $frac {log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}$ to a rational number $p/q$.

I wish $p$ and $q$ small enough. For example, I don't want $p$, $qapprox 10^7$; it's way too much for my code.



In the game, there's two way to upgrade ability. Type A gives an additional $50%$ increase at once. and type B gives $25%$.

What I want to know is how many times of upgrade $(x,y)$ provides the same additional increase. So what I've done is solve $(3/2)^x = (5/4)^y$ respect to $frac xy$.



Can you provide me a way to construct sequence $p_n$, $q_n$ which approximate the real number?

Thank you in advance.







approximation irrational-numbers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 24 at 12:59









YuiTo Cheng

2,1863937




2,1863937










asked Mar 24 at 1:59









MrTanorusMrTanorus

31918




31918












  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
    $endgroup$
    – amsmath
    Mar 24 at 2:19






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Mar 24 at 2:21






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
    $endgroup$
    – user647486
    Mar 24 at 2:21












  • $begingroup$
    try 82/149 ........
    $endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Mar 24 at 2:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
    $endgroup$
    – Minus One-Twelfth
    Mar 24 at 2:32


















  • $begingroup$
    I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
    $endgroup$
    – amsmath
    Mar 24 at 2:19






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
    $endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Mar 24 at 2:21






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
    $endgroup$
    – user647486
    Mar 24 at 2:21












  • $begingroup$
    try 82/149 ........
    $endgroup$
    – Will Jagy
    Mar 24 at 2:23






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
    $endgroup$
    – Minus One-Twelfth
    Mar 24 at 2:32
















$begingroup$
I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
Mar 24 at 2:19




$begingroup$
I don't understand your game, but your number approximately $0.55034$ and thus $tfrac{55034}{100000}$ or $tfrac{5503}{10000}$. What's wrong with that?
$endgroup$
– amsmath
Mar 24 at 2:19




7




7




$begingroup$
The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Mar 24 at 2:21




$begingroup$
The continued fraction expansion of your irrational number will produce the best rational approximation subject to a limit on size of the denominator.
$endgroup$
– hardmath
Mar 24 at 2:21




2




2




$begingroup$
You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
$endgroup$
– user647486
Mar 24 at 2:21






$begingroup$
You can take truncations of the continued fraction of that number. The first few of its values start like this.
$endgroup$
– user647486
Mar 24 at 2:21














$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Mar 24 at 2:23




$begingroup$
try 82/149 ........
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Mar 24 at 2:23




2




2




$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
Mar 24 at 2:32




$begingroup$
Cool, a practical application of continued fractions. :)
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
Mar 24 at 2:32










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















13












$begingroup$

Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:



$$begin{array}{cc|cc}x&q&a&b\
hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^{-6} & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
1.25cdot 10^{-6} & 3 & -127495 & 231666end{array}$$

The $q$ column are the quotients, that go into the continued fraction. The $a$ and $b$ columns track a linear combination of the original two that's equal to $x_n$; for example, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}right|$ is approximated by $frac{|a_n|}{|b_n|}$, with increasing accuracy.



The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac {x_{n-1}}{x_n}rightrfloor$, $x_{n+1}=x_{n-1}-q_nx_n$, $a_{n+1}=a_{n-1}-q_na_n$, $b_{n+1}=b_{n-1}-q_nb_n$. Initialize with $x_0=1$, $x_{-1}$ the quantity we're trying to estimate, $a_{-1}=b_0=0$, $a_0=b_{-1}=1$.

If you run the table much large than this, watch for floating-point accuracy issues; once the $x_n$ get down close to the accuracy limit for floating point numbers near zero, you can't trust the quotients anymore.



Now, how that accuracy increases is irregular. Large quotients go with particularly good approximations - see how that quotient of $143$ means that we have to go to six-digit numerator and denominator to do better than that $frac{891}{1619}$ approximation.



It is of course a tradeoff between accuracy and how deep you go. For your purposes in costing the two upgrades, I'd probably go with that $frac{11}{20}$ approximation.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    12












    $begingroup$

    The continued fraction for $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$ is
    $$
    {0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color{#C00}{10},143,3,dots}
    $$

    The convergents for this continued fraction are
    $$
    left{0,1,frac12,frac59,frac{11}{20},frac{71}{129},frac{82}{149},color{#C00}{frac{891}{1619}},frac{127495}{231666},frac{383376}{696617},dotsright}
    $$

    As Ross Millikan mentions, stopping just before a large continuant like $143$ gives a particularly good approximation for the size of the denominator; in this case, the approximation $frac{891}{1619}$ is closer than $frac1{143cdot1619^2}$ to $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
      $endgroup$
      – Ross Millikan
      Mar 24 at 2:54



















    11












    $begingroup$

    The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac {891}{1619}approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      (+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction approximation and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
      $endgroup$
      – robjohn
      Mar 24 at 3:07





















    1












    $begingroup$

    Use the following equation
    $$log(1+frac{1}{x})approxfrac{3+6x}{6x^2+6x+1}$$
    so
    $$log(frac{5}{4})=log(1+frac{1}{4})$$
    $$log(frac{3}{2})=log(1+frac{1}{2})$$
    the approximated value will be
    $$frac {log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx frac{333}{605}=0.55041322$$






    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%2f3160023%2fapproximating-frac-log5-4-log3-2-to-a-rational-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      13












      $begingroup$

      Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:



      $$begin{array}{cc|cc}x&q&a&b\
      hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^{-6} & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
      1.25cdot 10^{-6} & 3 & -127495 & 231666end{array}$$

      The $q$ column are the quotients, that go into the continued fraction. The $a$ and $b$ columns track a linear combination of the original two that's equal to $x_n$; for example, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}right|$ is approximated by $frac{|a_n|}{|b_n|}$, with increasing accuracy.



      The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac {x_{n-1}}{x_n}rightrfloor$, $x_{n+1}=x_{n-1}-q_nx_n$, $a_{n+1}=a_{n-1}-q_na_n$, $b_{n+1}=b_{n-1}-q_nb_n$. Initialize with $x_0=1$, $x_{-1}$ the quantity we're trying to estimate, $a_{-1}=b_0=0$, $a_0=b_{-1}=1$.

      If you run the table much large than this, watch for floating-point accuracy issues; once the $x_n$ get down close to the accuracy limit for floating point numbers near zero, you can't trust the quotients anymore.



      Now, how that accuracy increases is irregular. Large quotients go with particularly good approximations - see how that quotient of $143$ means that we have to go to six-digit numerator and denominator to do better than that $frac{891}{1619}$ approximation.



      It is of course a tradeoff between accuracy and how deep you go. For your purposes in costing the two upgrades, I'd probably go with that $frac{11}{20}$ approximation.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        13












        $begingroup$

        Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:



        $$begin{array}{cc|cc}x&q&a&b\
        hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^{-6} & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
        1.25cdot 10^{-6} & 3 & -127495 & 231666end{array}$$

        The $q$ column are the quotients, that go into the continued fraction. The $a$ and $b$ columns track a linear combination of the original two that's equal to $x_n$; for example, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}right|$ is approximated by $frac{|a_n|}{|b_n|}$, with increasing accuracy.



        The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac {x_{n-1}}{x_n}rightrfloor$, $x_{n+1}=x_{n-1}-q_nx_n$, $a_{n+1}=a_{n-1}-q_na_n$, $b_{n+1}=b_{n-1}-q_nb_n$. Initialize with $x_0=1$, $x_{-1}$ the quantity we're trying to estimate, $a_{-1}=b_0=0$, $a_0=b_{-1}=1$.

        If you run the table much large than this, watch for floating-point accuracy issues; once the $x_n$ get down close to the accuracy limit for floating point numbers near zero, you can't trust the quotients anymore.



        Now, how that accuracy increases is irregular. Large quotients go with particularly good approximations - see how that quotient of $143$ means that we have to go to six-digit numerator and denominator to do better than that $frac{891}{1619}$ approximation.



        It is of course a tradeoff between accuracy and how deep you go. For your purposes in costing the two upgrades, I'd probably go with that $frac{11}{20}$ approximation.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          13












          13








          13





          $begingroup$

          Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:



          $$begin{array}{cc|cc}x&q&a&b\
          hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^{-6} & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
          1.25cdot 10^{-6} & 3 & -127495 & 231666end{array}$$

          The $q$ column are the quotients, that go into the continued fraction. The $a$ and $b$ columns track a linear combination of the original two that's equal to $x_n$; for example, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}right|$ is approximated by $frac{|a_n|}{|b_n|}$, with increasing accuracy.



          The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac {x_{n-1}}{x_n}rightrfloor$, $x_{n+1}=x_{n-1}-q_nx_n$, $a_{n+1}=a_{n-1}-q_na_n$, $b_{n+1}=b_{n-1}-q_nb_n$. Initialize with $x_0=1$, $x_{-1}$ the quantity we're trying to estimate, $a_{-1}=b_0=0$, $a_0=b_{-1}=1$.

          If you run the table much large than this, watch for floating-point accuracy issues; once the $x_n$ get down close to the accuracy limit for floating point numbers near zero, you can't trust the quotients anymore.



          Now, how that accuracy increases is irregular. Large quotients go with particularly good approximations - see how that quotient of $143$ means that we have to go to six-digit numerator and denominator to do better than that $frac{891}{1619}$ approximation.



          It is of course a tradeoff between accuracy and how deep you go. For your purposes in costing the two upgrades, I'd probably go with that $frac{11}{20}$ approximation.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Running the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the continued fraction:



          $$begin{array}{cc|cc}x&q&a&b\
          hline 0.55033971 & & 0 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\ 0.55033971 & 1 & 0 & 1\ 0.44966029 & 1 & 1 & -1 \ 0.10067943 & 4 & -1 & 2\ 0.04694258 & 2 & 5 & -9\ 0.00679426 & 6 & -11 & 20 \ 0.00617700 & 1 & 71 & -129 \ 0.00061727 & 10 & -82 & 149\ 4.31cdot 10^{-6} & 143 & 891 & -1619 \
          1.25cdot 10^{-6} & 3 & -127495 & 231666end{array}$$

          The $q$ column are the quotients, that go into the continued fraction. The $a$ and $b$ columns track a linear combination of the original two that's equal to $x_n$; for example, $-11cdot 1 + 20cdot frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx 0.00679426$. The fraction $left|frac{log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}right|$ is approximated by $frac{|a_n|}{|b_n|}$, with increasing accuracy.



          The formulas for building this table: $q_n = leftlfloor frac {x_{n-1}}{x_n}rightrfloor$, $x_{n+1}=x_{n-1}-q_nx_n$, $a_{n+1}=a_{n-1}-q_na_n$, $b_{n+1}=b_{n-1}-q_nb_n$. Initialize with $x_0=1$, $x_{-1}$ the quantity we're trying to estimate, $a_{-1}=b_0=0$, $a_0=b_{-1}=1$.

          If you run the table much large than this, watch for floating-point accuracy issues; once the $x_n$ get down close to the accuracy limit for floating point numbers near zero, you can't trust the quotients anymore.



          Now, how that accuracy increases is irregular. Large quotients go with particularly good approximations - see how that quotient of $143$ means that we have to go to six-digit numerator and denominator to do better than that $frac{891}{1619}$ approximation.



          It is of course a tradeoff between accuracy and how deep you go. For your purposes in costing the two upgrades, I'd probably go with that $frac{11}{20}$ approximation.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 24 at 2:52









          jmerryjmerry

          16.9k11633




          16.9k11633























              12












              $begingroup$

              The continued fraction for $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$ is
              $$
              {0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color{#C00}{10},143,3,dots}
              $$

              The convergents for this continued fraction are
              $$
              left{0,1,frac12,frac59,frac{11}{20},frac{71}{129},frac{82}{149},color{#C00}{frac{891}{1619}},frac{127495}{231666},frac{383376}{696617},dotsright}
              $$

              As Ross Millikan mentions, stopping just before a large continuant like $143$ gives a particularly good approximation for the size of the denominator; in this case, the approximation $frac{891}{1619}$ is closer than $frac1{143cdot1619^2}$ to $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
                $endgroup$
                – Ross Millikan
                Mar 24 at 2:54
















              12












              $begingroup$

              The continued fraction for $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$ is
              $$
              {0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color{#C00}{10},143,3,dots}
              $$

              The convergents for this continued fraction are
              $$
              left{0,1,frac12,frac59,frac{11}{20},frac{71}{129},frac{82}{149},color{#C00}{frac{891}{1619}},frac{127495}{231666},frac{383376}{696617},dotsright}
              $$

              As Ross Millikan mentions, stopping just before a large continuant like $143$ gives a particularly good approximation for the size of the denominator; in this case, the approximation $frac{891}{1619}$ is closer than $frac1{143cdot1619^2}$ to $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
                $endgroup$
                – Ross Millikan
                Mar 24 at 2:54














              12












              12








              12





              $begingroup$

              The continued fraction for $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$ is
              $$
              {0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color{#C00}{10},143,3,dots}
              $$

              The convergents for this continued fraction are
              $$
              left{0,1,frac12,frac59,frac{11}{20},frac{71}{129},frac{82}{149},color{#C00}{frac{891}{1619}},frac{127495}{231666},frac{383376}{696617},dotsright}
              $$

              As Ross Millikan mentions, stopping just before a large continuant like $143$ gives a particularly good approximation for the size of the denominator; in this case, the approximation $frac{891}{1619}$ is closer than $frac1{143cdot1619^2}$ to $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              The continued fraction for $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$ is
              $$
              {0;1,1,4,2,6,1,color{#C00}{10},143,3,dots}
              $$

              The convergents for this continued fraction are
              $$
              left{0,1,frac12,frac59,frac{11}{20},frac{71}{129},frac{82}{149},color{#C00}{frac{891}{1619}},frac{127495}{231666},frac{383376}{696617},dotsright}
              $$

              As Ross Millikan mentions, stopping just before a large continuant like $143$ gives a particularly good approximation for the size of the denominator; in this case, the approximation $frac{891}{1619}$ is closer than $frac1{143cdot1619^2}$ to $frac{logleft(frac54right)}{logleft(frac32right)}$.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Mar 24 at 2:42









              robjohnrobjohn

              270k27312640




              270k27312640












              • $begingroup$
                Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
                $endgroup$
                – Ross Millikan
                Mar 24 at 2:54


















              • $begingroup$
                Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
                $endgroup$
                – Ross Millikan
                Mar 24 at 2:54
















              $begingroup$
              Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Ross Millikan
              Mar 24 at 2:54




              $begingroup$
              Thank you. A good addition to my answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Ross Millikan
              Mar 24 at 2:54











              11












              $begingroup$

              The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac {891}{1619}approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 2




                $begingroup$
                (+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction approximation and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
                $endgroup$
                – robjohn
                Mar 24 at 3:07


















              11












              $begingroup$

              The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac {891}{1619}approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$









              • 2




                $begingroup$
                (+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction approximation and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
                $endgroup$
                – robjohn
                Mar 24 at 3:07
















              11












              11








              11





              $begingroup$

              The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac {891}{1619}approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              The number you want to approximate is about $0.550339713213$. An excellent approximation is $frac {891}{1619}approx 0.550339715873$. I got that by using the continued fraction. When you see a large value like $143$, truncating before it yields a very good approximation.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Mar 24 at 2:27









              Ross MillikanRoss Millikan

              301k24200375




              301k24200375








              • 2




                $begingroup$
                (+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction approximation and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
                $endgroup$
                – robjohn
                Mar 24 at 3:07
















              • 2




                $begingroup$
                (+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction approximation and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
                $endgroup$
                – robjohn
                Mar 24 at 3:07










              2




              2




              $begingroup$
              (+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction approximation and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
              $endgroup$
              – robjohn
              Mar 24 at 3:07






              $begingroup$
              (+1) I wondered where you got $143$ until I actually computed the continued fraction. I'd hoped it was okay to expand upon your answer to show where that number came from. Also to mention that if $frac pq$ is a continued fraction approximation and $c$ is the next term in the conitnued fraction (which I think is called a continuant), then $frac pq$ is closer than $frac1{cq^2}$ to the value approximated.
              $endgroup$
              – robjohn
              Mar 24 at 3:07













              1












              $begingroup$

              Use the following equation
              $$log(1+frac{1}{x})approxfrac{3+6x}{6x^2+6x+1}$$
              so
              $$log(frac{5}{4})=log(1+frac{1}{4})$$
              $$log(frac{3}{2})=log(1+frac{1}{2})$$
              the approximated value will be
              $$frac {log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx frac{333}{605}=0.55041322$$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                Use the following equation
                $$log(1+frac{1}{x})approxfrac{3+6x}{6x^2+6x+1}$$
                so
                $$log(frac{5}{4})=log(1+frac{1}{4})$$
                $$log(frac{3}{2})=log(1+frac{1}{2})$$
                the approximated value will be
                $$frac {log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx frac{333}{605}=0.55041322$$






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Use the following equation
                  $$log(1+frac{1}{x})approxfrac{3+6x}{6x^2+6x+1}$$
                  so
                  $$log(frac{5}{4})=log(1+frac{1}{4})$$
                  $$log(frac{3}{2})=log(1+frac{1}{2})$$
                  the approximated value will be
                  $$frac {log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx frac{333}{605}=0.55041322$$






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Use the following equation
                  $$log(1+frac{1}{x})approxfrac{3+6x}{6x^2+6x+1}$$
                  so
                  $$log(frac{5}{4})=log(1+frac{1}{4})$$
                  $$log(frac{3}{2})=log(1+frac{1}{2})$$
                  the approximated value will be
                  $$frac {log(5/4)}{log(3/2)}approx frac{333}{605}=0.55041322$$







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 28 at 13:04









                  E.H.EE.H.E

                  16.1k11969




                  16.1k11969






























                      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%2f3160023%2fapproximating-frac-log5-4-log3-2-to-a-rational-number%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 send String Array data to Server using php in android

                      Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

                      Is anime1.com a legal site for watching anime?