Timeline for How good is Kamenetsky's formula for the number of digits in n-factorial?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:19 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| S Oct 28, 2013 at 11:25 | history | suggested | Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
OEIS link fixed.
|
| Oct 28, 2013 at 11:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 28, 2013 at 11:25 | |||||
| Aug 26, 2011 at 15:50 | comment | added | Dror Speiser | @Noam: It is evident that you were more creative than I was :) | |
| Aug 26, 2011 at 15:11 | history | edited | Noam D. Elkies |
changed new tag to existing "computational-number-theo" at jc's suggestion
|
|
| Aug 26, 2011 at 15:08 | comment | added | Noam D. Elkies | @jc: good idea. | |
| Aug 26, 2011 at 14:53 | comment | added | j.c. | @Noam D. Elkies: I notice that there's already a "computational-number-theo" tag with about 50 questions mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/computational-number-theo maybe that will do? | |
| Aug 26, 2011 at 14:44 | comment | added | Noam D. Elkies | I tried to create a nt.computational-number-theory tag but it seems to be too long (or is there a way to ovverride this?). So for now I'm abbreviating "number" to "#"; there should be a better solution... | |
| Aug 26, 2011 at 14:41 | history | edited | Noam D. Elkies |
"computational-number-theory" is too long :-(, so ...
|
|
| Aug 26, 2011 at 6:02 | vote | accept | Gerry Myerson | ||
| Aug 26, 2011 at 5:02 | comment | added | Andrew | Perhaps, since Kemenetsky is using a computer to do his calculations, another category should be added in addition to nt.number-theory? | |
| Aug 26, 2011 at 3:49 | answer | added | Noam D. Elkies | timeline score: 70 | |
| Aug 11, 2011 at 0:43 | history | edited | Gerry Myerson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 221 characters in body
|
| Nov 5, 2010 at 6:18 | answer | added | Dmitry Kamenetsky | timeline score: 35 | |
| Mar 24, 2010 at 22:29 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | It occurs to me that it was probably a bad idea on my part to call it "Kamenetsky's formula." It's so close to the surface that undoubtedly it was discovered many times before 2008, the year of Kamenetsky's submission to OEIS. Perhaps it goes all the way back to Stirling.... I would be interested in prior sightings of the formula in the literature. | |
| Mar 24, 2010 at 16:37 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | no paper of Kamenetsky appears in Math Reviews So we see that blogs and wikis have not reached the status of traditional publications. | |
| Mar 24, 2010 at 3:06 | answer | added | Jacques Carette | timeline score: 9 | |
| Mar 24, 2010 at 3:05 | comment | added | Douglas Zare | David Cantrell points out in that discussion that the formula is just the logarithm of Stirling's formula, that heuristics based on the errors in Stirling's formula say it should fail (be off by 1) infinitely often in each base, and there are some small and some large first failures in other bases, but no small failures in base 10. groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/… | |
| Mar 24, 2010 at 2:42 | history | asked | Gerry Myerson | CC BY-SA 2.5 |