Is there an efficient way of testing if the resulting value of an exponential gives an integer without actually expanding the equation. For example: log(12)−log(4)=1.09861…and is a transcendental number. But if we take the exponential, we get an integer: e^(log(12)-log(4))=e^(1.09861...)=3 This can be easily shown by proving that the equation is equivalent to 12/3. However is there a way to prove this while staying in the logarithm nation... We are assuming that the two numbers 12 and 4 are very large...Can I find say numerical stability bounds to this simple equation: 2.71828^(2.48491-1.38629)=3...such that if I use n digits, I will get an integer close the the n-th digit. This may look trivial, but let's assume we do not have say log(12), but only 2.48491… up to some precision of k-digit
Jairo Hodges
Answered question
2022-11-03
An efficient technique to test if an exponential of logs gives an integer
Is there an efficient way of testing if the resulting value of an exponential gives an integer without actually expanding the equation.
For example:
and is a transcendental number.
But if we take the exponential, we get an integer:
This can be easily shown by proving that the equation is equivalent to
However is there a way to prove this while staying in the logarithm nation... We are assuming that the two numbers and are very large...
Can I find say numerical stability bounds to this simple equation:
such that if I use digits, I will get an integer close the the -th digit.
This may look trivial, but let's assume we do not have say , but only up to some precision of k-digits. Same thing for , etc.