e and

Cody Dianopoulos merlincody@gmail.com June 30, 2012

Abstract The relationship between maths two biggest constants, e and , has been investigated by all of the greats of mathematics - Euler, Bernoulli, et al. - but remains a haze today. 15-year-old Cody Dianopoulos speculates that the relationship between e and is more than just that of Eulers great equation ei + 1 = 0, but that e and have, in fact, a direct relationship. Dianopoulos goes into the approximations of their relationship and how computers can be used to conrm the values.

Contents
1 The Scope 2 The 2.1 2.2 2.3 Approximations 28 June 2012, 19:48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 June 2012, 20:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 June 2012, 20:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 3 3 3 3 4

3 The Exact 4 References

The Scope

e Through research investigating the rationality of , I have stumbled upon the explicit relationship between e and . There is, in fact, a denite relationship between e and . I declare the relationship between e and , e 8.53973422, the Dianopoulos constant, . The signicance of this number is just too astounding, as there is a very high chance that this can be written as the sum of fractions. The rest of this paper will go through the brute-force approximations of e in terms of , as well as exact denitions of the relationship between e and .

2
2.1

The Approximations
28 June 2012, 19:48

e 7 5 < < 6 8 This clearly wasnt an actual attempt, just a solid foundation of

e .

2.2

28 June 2012, 20:12

e sin (1) 0.841470984808 Here, I recognized sin (1) from previous cases and realized that it was around 5 6 . This approximation is based o of the previous approximation.

2.3

28 June 2012, 20:27

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e + + + + + + = 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 i + + (1) 2 3 i=2

1 1 2i 2i + 1

0.868028246336

This one was really fascinating. When I saw the result of the addition of the fractions, I couldnt believe how close the approximation was. With this, I e . knew that there had to be some form of fraction addition that could model e e 2.7269911618 with this approximation of .

The Exact

At this point, I determined that guessing the fractions being added would not suce. I converted to nding the MacLaurin series expansion, evaluated at x = 1, of f ( x) = ex 4 tan1 x 3

1 Then, I gured, since 4 tan 1 x is not dened at 0, it would be easier to nd the MacLaurin expansion for 1 e , and the function

(x) =

4 tan1 x ex
4 tan1 x , ex

So, rst I had to nd the n-th derivative of that dn 4 tan1 x dxn ex This is because dn tan1 x dxn Therefore, =4 e
k n

evalutaed at 0. I found

= 4n!
x=0 i=0

(1) (n 2i) (n 2i)! (2i + 1)

i+n+1

= (n 1)! (1)
x=0

(n1)/2

(n

mod 2)

k=1 i=0

(1) (k 2i) (k 2i)! (2i + 1)

i+k+1

But, this did not suce. I sought out to nd the series for , the Dianopoulos constant. After expanding the MacLaurin series for ex 4 tan1 x, I found that

k 1 2

=
k=1 i=0

(k 2i) (1) (k 2i)! (2i + 1)

and 4 e=

k1 2

k=1 i=0

(k 2i) (1) (k 2i)! (2i + 1)

References

Gullberg, Jan. Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. Print. TI-NspireTM CAS Student Software. Dallas: Texas Instruments Calculators, 2011. Computer software.