I agree - if and only if - one throws in a pi or an e - without any
mathematical reason.
I draw your kind attention to the quotation in my letter regarding the
Hardy-Ramanujan-Rademacher formula.
Besides I mention, the recommended modification is a better approximation as 3/2
and almost just the same as the Jud Mc Cranie's other number.
Regards
Paul La'ng
Budapest, Hungary
Aaron Blosser wrote:
> > Well, we're dealing with experimental data, and both look about
> > equally good. On balance I prefer the argument with pi in it. Pi
> > deserves a place in most fundamental laws...
> >
> > (Much waving of arms ... obviously a beautiful solution isn't always
> > right)
>
> Besides, any equation just looks much cooler if you throw in a pi or an e or
> something. Just the word "transcendental" makes an equation seem
> otherworldly! :-)
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
