Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Euler's continued fraction formula is still the basis of many modern proofs of convergence of continued fractions. In 1761, ... is a continuous mapping, ...
Euler derived the formula as connecting a finite sum of products with a finite continued fraction. (+ (+ (+))) = + + + + = + + + +The identity is easily established by induction on n, and is therefore applicable in the limit: if the expression on the left is extended to represent a convergent infinite series, the expression on the right can also be extended to represent a convergent infinite ...
The proof is straightforward. From the fraction itself, one can construct the quadratic equation with integral coefficients that x must satisfy. Lagrange proved the converse of Euler's theorem: if x is a quadratic irrational, then the regular continued fraction expansion of x is periodic. [4]
The continued fractions on the right hand side will converge uniformly on any closed and bounded set that contains no poles of this function. [ 7 ] In the case 2 F 1 {\displaystyle {}_{2}F_{1}} , the radius of convergence of the series is 1 and the fraction on the left hand side is a meromorphic function within this circle.
If this infinite continued fraction converges at all, it must converge to one of the roots of the monic polynomial x 2 + bx + c = 0. Unfortunately, this particular continued fraction does not converge to a finite number in every case. We can easily see that this is so by considering the quadratic formula and a
Euler's formula; Partial fractions (Heaviside's method ... a continuous function is a function such that a small variation of the argument induces a small variation ...
Here’s what the letters represent: A is the amount of money in your account. P is your principal balance you invested. R is the annual interest rate expressed as a decimal. N is the number of ...
The Rogers–Ramanujan continued fraction is a continued fraction discovered by Rogers (1894) and independently by Srinivasa Ramanujan, and closely related to the Rogers–Ramanujan identities. It can be evaluated explicitly for a broad class of values of its argument.