Why Legendre made a wrong guess about \(\pi(x)\), and how Laguerre's continued fraction for the logarithmic integral improved it. (Q1411668)
From MaRDI portal
| This is the item page for this Wikibase entity, intended for internal use and editing purposes. Please use this page instead for the normal view: Why Legendre made a wrong guess about \(\pi(x)\), and how Laguerre's continued fraction for the logarithmic integral improved it. |
scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1998264
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Why Legendre made a wrong guess about \(\pi(x)\), and how Laguerre's continued fraction for the logarithmic integral improved it. |
scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1998264 |
Statements
Why Legendre made a wrong guess about \(\pi(x)\), and how Laguerre's continued fraction for the logarithmic integral improved it. (English)
0 references
16 December 2003
0 references
This gives an historical account of attempts to approximate \(\pi(x)\). Laguerre's continued fraction for \(li(x)\) shows that convergence to \(\pi(x)\sim x/(\ln x- 1)\) is very slow and Legendre had available calculations of \(\pi(x)\) only for \(x\) up to \(4.10^5\). Tables are given showing the discrepancies between approximations to \(\pi(x)\) by various methods and for various values of \(x\) up to \(10^{22}\). (The largest value of \(x\) for which \(\pi(x)\) is currently known is \(4.10^{22}\)).
0 references
approximatoins to \(\pi(x)\)
0 references
0 references