For which models was 2^3>8?

Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

For which models was 2^3>8?

04-04-2017, 07:53 PM

Post: #13

Dieter Offline

Senior Member

Posts: 2,397
Joined: Dec 2013

RE: For which models was 2^3>8?

(04-04-2017 07:42 PM)james summers Wrote: [2] [ln] = 6.9314717 E-01
[3] [x] = 2.0794415
[e^x] b = 7.9999993

So the log and exp functions may have errors in the last digit.
The correct eight-digit values are ln 2 = 0,69314718 and e^2,0794415 = 7,9999997.

Dieter

« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Messages In This Thread

For which models was 2^3>8? - Joe Horn - 04-04-2017, 05:03 AM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - james summers - 04-04-2017, 06:26 AM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - Joe Horn - 04-04-2017, 12:17 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - james summers - 04-04-2017, 01:05 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - Dave Britten - 04-04-2017, 03:28 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - pier4r - 04-04-2017, 05:20 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - Dieter - 04-04-2017, 05:51 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - Thomas Okken - 04-04-2017, 10:26 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - Dave Britten - 04-05-2017, 11:34 AM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - pier4r - 04-04-2017, 06:10 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - bshoring - 04-04-2017, 06:16 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - teenix - 04-05-2017, 07:50 AM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - bshoring - 04-05-2017, 06:08 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - james summers - 04-04-2017, 06:45 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - Dieter - 04-04-2017, 07:18 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - james summers - 04-04-2017, 07:42 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - Dieter - 04-04-2017 07:53 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - bshoring - 04-04-2017, 10:14 PM

RE: For which models was 2^3>8? - Andres - 06-23-2020, 04:39 AM

User(s) browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)