In 1720, Christian Goldbach's experiments with infinite series was published in the German journal Acta Eruditorum, he titled his paper Specimen methodi ad summas serierum and proceeded to furnish a number of worked examplesThe following examples are given in Goldbach's 1720 paper: 12+16+112+120+…264+11544+261972+475104+…12+14+18+116+…13+181+119683+143046721+…whose general terms are 1x2+x, 3x2−19x4+36x3+33x2−6x−8, 12x, and 12xx−x. of his finite difference technique for relocating the general term of a given sequence. The general principle is that in the general case, the n-th term, an, of any number sequence
a1,a2,a3,…
can be expressed by using an infinite series involving differences of known terms:
an=a1+n−11!Δa1+(n−1)(n−2)2!Δ2a1+…
where the delta's are iteratively defined by Δa1=an+1−an and
Δna1=Δn−1an+1−Δn−1an=n−1∑k=0(n−1k)an+1−k
This recurrence is actually related to the backward finite difference scheme, since the modern rewrite of the equation involves binomial coefficients.
Goldbach recounted, in his letter to Daniel Bernoulli, that he was introduced to the subject of infinite series by Daniel's uncle, Nikolaus I at Oxford in 1712. Nikolaus gave Goldbach some reading materials (written by Nikolaus's older brother Jakob) but Goldbach was not able to fully comprehend the work. His interest in the subject was refreshed a few years later when he read Leibniz's article in Acta eruditorum in 1717, which motivated him to submit his own infinite series entry to the same journal in 1720. In modern notation, Δna1 can be written as: Δna1=∑n−1k=0(n−1k)an+1−k.
Construction of the general term is curiously important because you can then use the formula to inject an arbitary members between terms in the original number sequence. For example, we can ask: what should be the value assigned to a12, a112, a212, etc?
.↘a12,a1,.↘a112,a2,.↘a212,a3,…
Many years later in 1728, Goldbach polished the same idea and wrote a paper titled De terminus generalibus serierum. For example, when an=1n!, the equation reduced to
1n!=1−12!n−11!+13!(n−1)(n−2)2!+14!(n−1)(n−2)(n−3)3!+…
and when n=112,
112!=11−12!12−13!12⋅4+14!12⋅4⋅6+…
Daniel BernoulliGoldbach met Daniel's brother, Nikolaus, in Venice, and at Nikolaus's suggestion, Goldbach, in April 1723, initiated a series of mail exchanges with Daniel, which lasted until 1730. Daniel's father, Johann, was Euler's teacher at the University of Basel, Switzerland. apparently has a copy of this paper and he presented the Goldbach's idea in a seminar at St. Petersburg Academy, on 23 September 1729. We suppose the young Euler had attended the seminar and he realized that Goldbach's construct of computing the general term of a number sequence using another infinite sequence is not the most elegant solution. Euler must have mentioned this to Daniel, and so Daniel told him to talk to Goldbach directly.
Catherine I (1684-1727) reigned briefly after her husband Peter I died in early 1725. When his grandmother died in mid 1727, the powerful Dolgoruky family moved the 12-year-old Peter II (1715-1730) and the capital from St. Petersburg (St. Peterburg, founded in 1703, is eponymized after Peter I) to Moscow and was later crowned at the Dormition Cathedral on 24 February 1728. About the same time, Goldbach was offered a new job as the tutor to Peter II and his sister, and followed his king to Moscow in January 1728. But Euler, the young men who Goldbach met half-a-year earlier (at the post-burial gatheringSee Footnote 30 in leonhardi euleri opera omnia: In his travel diary Euler notes: “On the 27th the funeral of the late Empress took place . . .we went into the [Peter and Paul] Fortress and the Church, looked on her again and kissed her hand; from there we went to see Mr. de l’Isle and Mr. Leutmann and towards evening visited the Court Physician [Blumentrost], where we met Justice Councillor Goldbach, Mr. Henninger and Mr. Schumacher”. “den 27. war die Leichbegengnuß der seligen Kaiserin . . . da giengen wir in die Festung und Kirche, beschaueten die Kayserin nochmahls und küsseten ihr die Hand, von dar giengen wir zu Mr. de l’Isle und H. Leutman und auf den abend zu H. Leibmedicus, da wir H. Justitien-Raht Goldbach, H. Henninger und H. Schumacher antraffen": Notebook II, quoted according to Mikhailov 1959, p. 278). for Catherine I, on 27 May 1727), stayed remain at St. Petersburg. Goldbach eventually left Moscow and returned to St. Petersburg, when his tutee, Peter II, died unexpectedly in January 1730, when his fiancee Catherine Dolgorukaia infected him with smallpox. See M. Zack, D. Schlimm eds. (2017) Research in History and Philosophy of Mathematics: Proceedings of the 2016 Canadian Society for History and Philosophy of Mathematics in Calgary, Alberta, Birkhauser, Cham, pp. 98-99.
Subsequently in 13This is a date in the old Julian calendar, it is proleptically equivalent to 24 October 1729 (Monday). Later when Euler moved to Berlin, he began to mark his letter with Gregorian dates. However, the dates on Goldbach replies are consistently marked using the Gregorian system. October 1729, the 22-year-old Euler wrote his first mail to Goldbach. This historic mail travelled 700 kilometers southeast from St. Peterburg to Moscow and it carried the following equation:
m!=1⋅2m1+m21−m⋅3m2+m31−m⋅4m3+m41−m⋅5m4+m⋯
This equation announced to Goldbach that Euler had found a solution to the interpolation problem, mentioned by Daniel Bernoulli in a seminar three weeks earlier.
Euler told Goldbach in the letterFor a modern English translation of the first letter, see M. Mattmüller and Martin, F. Lemmermeyer, eds. (2016) Correspondence of Leonhard Euler with Christian Goldbach Vol. 4A, Birkhäuser, p. 583. The book is also hosted at the University of Basel site., that he knew that Daniel's infinite product was communicated to Goldbach about a week ago. Euler said he showed his infinite product to Daniel and the latter told him that he had a similar-looking result which was used to estimate 112!. Actually Daniel presented two numerical examples to Goldbach, but his estimate for 112! contains a mistake. Daniel wrote in his mail that by taking x=32,A=8, he was able to get 112!≈b(8,112,2)≈1.3005. This is apparently incorrect since √3544567891011121314151617≈1.32907. Daniel must have mis-substituted 3 for 32 in the surd expression since he wrote √192 instead of √354. You can see in this photograph that the value of 112! given by Euler is 34√π=1.3293403, a value that was derived not by the infinite product but by a completely new thought process.
After giving some mundane numerical examples on how to use his infinite product formula, e.g. 4398161525243635⋯=2 and 8427206454125112⋯=6, Euler went on to explain that by reframing the problem geometrically as quadrature, he can actually obtainActually what Euler wrote in the letter was: Terminem autem exponentis 12 aequalis inventus est huic 12√(√−1.l−1), seu quod huic aequale est, lateri quadrati aequalis circulo, cujus diameter =1. The formula essentially means 12√√−1ln(−1) in modern notation. Since ln(−1)=iπ+2iπk,k∈Z, the expression 12√√−1ln(−1) can be reduced to 12√i(iπ+2iπk)=12√π, when k=−1.:
12!=12√√−1ln(−1)
and proceeded to say that the result is equivalent to 12√π=0.8862269. And with this he showed that he can easily calculate 112! as
112!=112×12!=34√π=1.3293403…
Interestingly, another letter was addressed to Goldbach, at about the same time, by Daniel Bernoulli himself to talk about a certain cycloid problem. However, in the postscript of the letter, he briefly mentioned the use of the following infinite product to compute x!:
x!=(A+12x)x−121+x32+x43+x⋯AA−1+x
It is not known which letter reached Goldbach first. It could be well that both of them reach Moscow on the same day if they are transported on the same mail carrier, even though the dates mentioned in the letter are gapped by one week.
You can roughly convince yourself that Euler's expression for m! is true by the following mental process: Bring all of the factors in the denominator of the right hand side of the equation and combine it with m! to form
m!(m+1)(m+2)(m+3)(m+4)⋯
which is really 1⋅2⋅3⋅4⋯ since the dot-dot-dot continues indefinitely. On the other hand, the numerator can be rewritten as:
1⋅2m(22m⋅3m)(33m⋅4m)(44m⋅5m)⋯
which is apparently equivalent to 1⋅2⋅3⋅4⋯ since the dots extend ad infinitum.
Sketch of the gap function g(A,112,u)=|112!−√A+32u∏A−1k=1k+1k+3/2| for some values of A: A=23 (in blue), A=26 (in orange), A=29 (in green). Apparently u=2 is a special value, although the asymptotic behavior of g is g(∞,x,u)→0 for all values of u.
Let us now turn our attention to Bernoulli's infinite product. In modern notation, his formula can be compressed to b(∞,x,2), where
b(A,x,u)=(A+1ux)x−1A−1∏k=1k+1k+x
Using this, Bernoulli cited two numerical examples, one of which is 3!≈b(16,3,2)=61204. Bernoulli's expression is correct in general since it can be transformedFirst we move all the factors in the denominator to the left and multiply them with x! to form: x!(x+1)(x+2)⋯(x+A−1)=(x+A−1)!Then we bring A!=2⋅3⋯A on the numerator to the left hand side of the equation, so that we have LHS=(x+A−1)!A!=A!(A+1)(A+2)⋯(A+x−1)A! Then we bring (A+1ux)x−1 to the denominator of LHS:A+1A+1uxA+2A+1ux⋯A+x−1A+1ux to
limA→∞x−1∏k=11+kA1+x/uA=1
Note that this relation is true for all values of u so the choice of u=2 in Bernoulli's infinite product is curiously interesting, for if we define
g(A,x,u)=|x!−b(A,x,u)|
It is immediately clear that u=2 is the value associated with the best asymptotic behavior.
Sketch of the function b(A,112,u)=√A+32u∏A−1k=1k+1k+3/2, plotted from A∈[10,104]: u=1 (in blue), u=1.5 (in orange), u=2 (in green), u=2.5 (in red), u=3 (in purple).
如果你或你的公司不還稅, 內陸稅收局 的人就會寄一封公函來罵你並跟你討錢。 在馬來西亞,所有的政府公函,都會印上 Urusan Seri Paduka Baginda 的字樣。「Urusan Seri Paduka Baginda」其實是延續英國人 On His Majesty's Service 的傳統。「 Seri Paduka Baginda 」這三個字的英語是「His Majesty」或「Her Majesty」,而「Urusan」則是「Service」。 現代英國郵遞系統的原型是愛德華四世國王 Edward IV (1461-1483)設計的,他為了加快情報的傳遞速度,在大概每30km就設了一根柱子(post)和一匹新馬。這樣,情報的傳遞便能達到約2 m/s。 J. C. Hemmeon在1912年出版的《The history of the British post office》是這樣寫道的: A somewhat different style of postal service, a precursor of the modern method, was inaugurated by the fourth Edward. During the war with Scotland he found himself in need of a speedier and better system of communication between the seat of war and the seat of government. He accomplished this by placing horses at intervals of twenty miles along the great road between England and Scotland. By so doing his messengers were able to take up fresh horses along the way and his despatches were carried at the rate of a hundred miles a day. 500年前2 m...
從吉打 Lembah Bujang 布央谷開車回家,經過怡保的時候剛好是晚餐時間。 在麥當勞用過晚餐後,發現開車的我好像也有點睏了,於是決定在怡保睡一覺。我們把車開到 Bandar Meru Raya ,然後跟 Casuarina 要了一間房間。 隔天早我見小兒子辛円睡到很遲還不願意起床,就拿起手機給他照了一張相 1 。 原想給照片標上:阿円睡到日上三竿 2 ,大太陽曬屁股還不起身。但,住在我頭腦裡面的另外一個人問我: 三竿 到底是 : 點? The timestamp of the photograph was 9:12:09 morning (28 May 2017). The explanation given by National Academy for Educational Research of Taiwan 台灣國家教育研究院 is:太陽已上升到 三根 竹竿相接的 高度 。表示時候不早了。This explanation suggests that ‘三' (three) is to be interpreted vertically and absolutely, instead of umbrally and relative to the physical pole. Given the fact in the phrase 三竿 (three poles) was recorded by an observatory officer, it is unlikely that the former intepretation is correct. 大太陽曬屁股還不起身嗎? 於是我便上網查了一下該成語的出處:「日上三竿」應該是出自《 南齊書・天文誌上・日光色 》的一段話。《南齊書・天文誌》是南齊政府天文局官員根據每日的觀測日記整...
1957/0118652W In the Court of the Senior Magistrate at Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No. 138 of 1898. In the matter of the Estate of Yap Ah Loy, deceased, between Yap Hon Chin (28) Yap Loong Shin (23) Yap Leong Soon (18) Yap Kim Neo Yap Leong Sem by his next friend Ong Chi Siew Yap Leong Fong Plaintiffs and Kok Kang Keow (48), otherwise called Kok Ngeo Nga who is sued as Administratrix of the Estate and Effects of Yap Ah Loy, deceased. On the tombstone of Yap Ah Loy, we were given the following list: 1 隆興 (b. 29 December 1869, d. 5 January 1933), 2 隆盛 (Loong Shin, b. 4 April 1875, d. <1925?), 3 隆顺 (Leong Soon, b. 6 March 1880, d. 8 December 1907, died when he was only 27.8), 4 隆發 (b. 10 August 1882, d. 21 September 1900, died when he was only 18...
The official emblem of the state of Malacca shows two light brown mouse deers on each side of the tree of Malacca. This depiction is rather problematic. Because, if the emblem is meant to commemorate the brave Sang Kancil , as encountered by Parameswara in the Sejarah Melayu, then the color of the animal is probably not correct. If you follow the Malay classic carefully, the Sang Kancil mentioned is not light brown but white . The relatively new The logo was unveiled when Malacca was declared Historical City on April 13, 2003 logo of the City Council of Malacca, however, correctly show the two mouse deers in white . On the other hand, the Sang Kancil story purported to explain the founding of Malacca could be a story modified from a folk-tale from Sri Lanka. This fact was first noted by R. O. Winstedt (1922) Two Legends of Malacca, Journal of Straits Branch of Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 85, p. 40. I was in the Za'ba Memorial Library , around ...
Comments