[–] VIP740 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
It's definitely interesting. Mathematicians used to be very secretive about their work. There's no telling how many discoveries were lost to history. I'd have to spend some time studying this to be sure it's legit. Assuming the presentation is accurate, I would expect this type of pattern to show up elsewhere. The first thing I would question would be the accuracy of the measurements, were they definitely going for the numbers shown, or were they just picking the closest significant numbers they could find?
[–] TheBuddha 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
For one, print wasn't that accurate. I only made it partway through before giving up. It was known, most likely, but never written as such and Euler's constant really gets the name because of his fame.
This may interest you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)#History
[–] UlyssesEMcGill [S] ago
@TheBuddha @The_Cat @Dellcos
I was blown away by this, but is it another case of someone manipulating numbers to perceive what they want to see?
[–] TheBuddha 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The latter - I'm pretty sure. Print wasn't that accurate and the number has a history he's not aware of. It's known as Euler's constant and, while not formalized, was almost certainly in use long before calc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)#History
[–] UlyssesEMcGill [S] ago
It says the first reference was in 1618, 9 years after the collected sonnets.
What? Are you saying the large period was a mistake?
What's the reason for the two blank lines?
[–] TheBuddha 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I don't have time to watch tonight, but I'll absolutely look tomorrow. This will serve as a reminder for me.
It's Friday night, well not anymore, and it's our weekly guitar thread and I also have someone watching a movie and I'm kinda stuck sitting with them. So, thanks for the ping and I'll check in tomorrow and see if I can give a good response.