Can the golden ratio accurately be expressed in terms of $e$ and $pi$












89












$begingroup$


I was playing around with numbers when I noticed that $sqrt e$ was very somewhat close to $phi$

And so, I took it upon myself to try to find a way to express the golden ratio in terms of the infamous values, $largepi$ and $large e$

The closest that I've come so far is:
$$
varphi approx sqrt e - frac{pi}{(e+pi)^e - sqrt e}
$$



My question is,
Is there a better (more precise and accurate) way of expressing $phi$ in terms of $e$ and $pi$ ?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    $sqrt e$ is not "very close" to $phi$
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Jul 29 '13 at 3:09








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @lhf: I've corrected it. Funfact: It's more closer to $phi$ than David Feinberg's lonely number.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick
    Jul 29 '13 at 10:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dan: My mistake, sorry. I accidentally swapped a plus for a minus. It's a bit closer now.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick
    Jul 29 '13 at 10:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Nick I've had a go at retagging. There might be some more conceptual things appropriate, but this will do for now.
    $endgroup$
    – Sharkos
    Jul 29 '13 at 11:16






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is notable that $ pi /2 approx phi $
    $endgroup$
    – Mrigank Shekhar Pathak
    Mar 6 '17 at 11:11


















89












$begingroup$


I was playing around with numbers when I noticed that $sqrt e$ was very somewhat close to $phi$

And so, I took it upon myself to try to find a way to express the golden ratio in terms of the infamous values, $largepi$ and $large e$

The closest that I've come so far is:
$$
varphi approx sqrt e - frac{pi}{(e+pi)^e - sqrt e}
$$



My question is,
Is there a better (more precise and accurate) way of expressing $phi$ in terms of $e$ and $pi$ ?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    $sqrt e$ is not "very close" to $phi$
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Jul 29 '13 at 3:09








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @lhf: I've corrected it. Funfact: It's more closer to $phi$ than David Feinberg's lonely number.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick
    Jul 29 '13 at 10:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dan: My mistake, sorry. I accidentally swapped a plus for a minus. It's a bit closer now.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick
    Jul 29 '13 at 10:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Nick I've had a go at retagging. There might be some more conceptual things appropriate, but this will do for now.
    $endgroup$
    – Sharkos
    Jul 29 '13 at 11:16






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is notable that $ pi /2 approx phi $
    $endgroup$
    – Mrigank Shekhar Pathak
    Mar 6 '17 at 11:11
















89












89








89


42



$begingroup$


I was playing around with numbers when I noticed that $sqrt e$ was very somewhat close to $phi$

And so, I took it upon myself to try to find a way to express the golden ratio in terms of the infamous values, $largepi$ and $large e$

The closest that I've come so far is:
$$
varphi approx sqrt e - frac{pi}{(e+pi)^e - sqrt e}
$$



My question is,
Is there a better (more precise and accurate) way of expressing $phi$ in terms of $e$ and $pi$ ?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I was playing around with numbers when I noticed that $sqrt e$ was very somewhat close to $phi$

And so, I took it upon myself to try to find a way to express the golden ratio in terms of the infamous values, $largepi$ and $large e$

The closest that I've come so far is:
$$
varphi approx sqrt e - frac{pi}{(e+pi)^e - sqrt e}
$$



My question is,
Is there a better (more precise and accurate) way of expressing $phi$ in terms of $e$ and $pi$ ?







soft-question recreational-mathematics approximation diophantine-approximation golden-ratio






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jul 31 '18 at 19:36









TheSimpliFire

12.6k62360




12.6k62360










asked Jul 28 '13 at 21:01









NickNick

3,70673461




3,70673461








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    $sqrt e$ is not "very close" to $phi$
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Jul 29 '13 at 3:09








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @lhf: I've corrected it. Funfact: It's more closer to $phi$ than David Feinberg's lonely number.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick
    Jul 29 '13 at 10:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dan: My mistake, sorry. I accidentally swapped a plus for a minus. It's a bit closer now.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick
    Jul 29 '13 at 10:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Nick I've had a go at retagging. There might be some more conceptual things appropriate, but this will do for now.
    $endgroup$
    – Sharkos
    Jul 29 '13 at 11:16






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is notable that $ pi /2 approx phi $
    $endgroup$
    – Mrigank Shekhar Pathak
    Mar 6 '17 at 11:11
















  • 7




    $begingroup$
    $sqrt e$ is not "very close" to $phi$
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Jul 29 '13 at 3:09








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @lhf: I've corrected it. Funfact: It's more closer to $phi$ than David Feinberg's lonely number.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick
    Jul 29 '13 at 10:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dan: My mistake, sorry. I accidentally swapped a plus for a minus. It's a bit closer now.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick
    Jul 29 '13 at 10:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Nick I've had a go at retagging. There might be some more conceptual things appropriate, but this will do for now.
    $endgroup$
    – Sharkos
    Jul 29 '13 at 11:16






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It is notable that $ pi /2 approx phi $
    $endgroup$
    – Mrigank Shekhar Pathak
    Mar 6 '17 at 11:11










7




7




$begingroup$
$sqrt e$ is not "very close" to $phi$
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jul 29 '13 at 3:09






$begingroup$
$sqrt e$ is not "very close" to $phi$
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jul 29 '13 at 3:09






1




1




$begingroup$
@lhf: I've corrected it. Funfact: It's more closer to $phi$ than David Feinberg's lonely number.
$endgroup$
– Nick
Jul 29 '13 at 10:56




$begingroup$
@lhf: I've corrected it. Funfact: It's more closer to $phi$ than David Feinberg's lonely number.
$endgroup$
– Nick
Jul 29 '13 at 10:56




1




1




$begingroup$
@Dan: My mistake, sorry. I accidentally swapped a plus for a minus. It's a bit closer now.
$endgroup$
– Nick
Jul 29 '13 at 10:58




$begingroup$
@Dan: My mistake, sorry. I accidentally swapped a plus for a minus. It's a bit closer now.
$endgroup$
– Nick
Jul 29 '13 at 10:58




1




1




$begingroup$
@Nick I've had a go at retagging. There might be some more conceptual things appropriate, but this will do for now.
$endgroup$
– Sharkos
Jul 29 '13 at 11:16




$begingroup$
@Nick I've had a go at retagging. There might be some more conceptual things appropriate, but this will do for now.
$endgroup$
– Sharkos
Jul 29 '13 at 11:16




1




1




$begingroup$
It is notable that $ pi /2 approx phi $
$endgroup$
– Mrigank Shekhar Pathak
Mar 6 '17 at 11:11






$begingroup$
It is notable that $ pi /2 approx phi $
$endgroup$
– Mrigank Shekhar Pathak
Mar 6 '17 at 11:11












16 Answers
16






active

oldest

votes


















226












$begingroup$

$e$ and $pi$ are transcendental numbers, that is to say they are not the solution of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It's not hard to see that if $x$ is transcendental, then the following are also transcendental:




  • $x pm c$ for any rational number $c$,

  • $kx$ for any nonzero rational number $k$ (so $x/k$ too),

  • $x^n$ for any whole number $n > 1$,

  • $sqrt{x}$ and indeed $sqrt[n]{x}$ for any whole number $n > 1$.


$phi$ is not transcendental: it is the solution to a simple quadratic polynomial, so it won't be the result of any operations like the above applied to a transcendental number. The only way you're going to get an expression exactly equal to $phi$ using only one of $e$ and $pi$ and the above operations is by not really using them at all, e.g. cancelling them out completely, as other answers do.



What if you use both $e$ and $pi$? Well, somewhat absurdly, it's not even known if $e + pi$ is irrational, let alone transcendental! So with our current level of knowledge we can't say whether you can make $phi$ exactly in a nontrivial way. However, I think most mathematicians would be extremely surprised if it turned out that $e + pi$ or anything like it (apart from $e^{ipi}$ and its family, of course!) were not transcendental, and hence mostly useless for constructing something like $phi$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 26




    $begingroup$
    The other answers are cute, but this adds a lot more depth. Thanks for the contribution!
    $endgroup$
    – Beska
    Jul 29 '13 at 1:31






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    Bravo! I think the OP's underlying question is whether $phi$ is fundamentally connected to $pi$ and/or $e$ much in the same way as $pi$ and $e$ are interconnected. The answer is - of course - "no, it's not", for the reasons outlined by this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Euro Micelli
    Jul 29 '13 at 1:33






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    Would you consider $varphi = e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}$ "a nontrivial way"? I suppose it's a member of "$e^{ipi}$ and its family"..
    $endgroup$
    – A. Rex
    Jul 29 '13 at 9:01






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    $+1$. I don't know why the above joke is upvoted more than this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Mo_
    Jul 29 '13 at 11:03








  • 8




    $begingroup$
    And I don't get, why is this answer upvoted at all. It is't even the answer.
    $endgroup$
    – gukoff
    Jul 29 '13 at 19:43



















372












$begingroup$

The following is exact. :-)



$$phi=frac{frac{pi}{pi}+sqrt{frac{e+e+e+e+e}{e}}}{frac{e}{e}+frac{pi}{pi}}$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 56




    $begingroup$
    +1 So cute! ${}{}$
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Jul 28 '13 at 21:14






  • 40




    $begingroup$
    when I saw this, I knew that moment, the course of my life is changing
    $endgroup$
    – user85461
    Jul 28 '13 at 21:24






  • 33




    $begingroup$
    This might be the most upvoted goofy answer...nice!+1
    $endgroup$
    – DonAntonio
    Jul 28 '13 at 21:27








  • 24




    $begingroup$
    This makes a great math joke!
    $endgroup$
    – zerosofthezeta
    Jul 29 '13 at 1:35






  • 31




    $begingroup$
    I should have expected an answer like this the moment I posed my question.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick
    Jul 30 '13 at 13:40



















165












$begingroup$

At the time of writing, three of the other answers simply express the golden ratio by using expressions like $e/e$ and $pi/pi$ to get small integers. The fourth and final one discusses why a good solution is unlikely.



I believe using the imaginary unit $i=sqrt{-1}$ results in the following very elegant solution:
$$ varphi = e^{ipi/5} + e^{-ipi/5}. $$



Edit: robjohn notes that one can directly derive the fundamental identity for the golden ratio $varphi^2 = varphi + 1$ from this expression:



$$
begin{align}
color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2
&=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\
&=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\
&=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\
&=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1
end{align}.
$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Even though it comes from the fact that $varphi = frac{1+sqrt{5}}{2}$, it's neat seeing it in this way.
    $endgroup$
    – Cameron Williams
    Jul 29 '13 at 3:17






  • 20




    $begingroup$
    This answer is related to the geometric fact if you form a star inside a regular pentagon, the ratio of the side of the star to that of the pentagon is $2cosfrac{pi}{5} = varphi$.
    $endgroup$
    – achille hui
    Jul 29 '13 at 7:05






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @CameronWilliams: I'm not sure what you mean, though of course that is the golden ratio. If you change the $5$s in my expression to $6$s, say, you don't get $(1+sqrt{6})/2$. (In fact, you get $sqrt{3}$.)
    $endgroup$
    – A. Rex
    Jul 29 '13 at 8:55






  • 19




    $begingroup$
    This is a great answer to a not particularly great question. 'Your idle curiosity is the gateway to deep and beautiful mathematics which you are capable of understanding' - the best thing a teacher can tell you. Sad that the 'funny' answer has more than three times as many upvotes
    $endgroup$
    – jwg
    Jul 29 '13 at 11:25






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    (+1) I didn't see your answer until after I posted, so I deleted mine. However, note that $$ begin{align} color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2 &=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\ &=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\ &=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\ &=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1 end{align} $$
    $endgroup$
    – robjohn
    Jul 31 '13 at 0:42





















84












$begingroup$

If the discussion is not limited to closed-form expressions, it's worth adding that Ramanujan's first letter to Hardy contains an identity that, with a slight rearrangement, allows one to precisely express $phi$ in terms of $pi$ and $e$:



$phi =sqrt{frac{1}{2} left(5+sqrt{5}right)}-cfrac{e^{-frac{2 pi}{5}}}{1+cfrac{e^{-2pi}} {1+cfrac{e^{-4pi}} {1+cfrac{e^{-6pi}}
{1+ddots} } } }$



Although $phi$ can be found in the radicand (and is thus not isolated on the LHS), Ramanujan's insight is certainly beautiful and is noteworthy for uniting three of the pillars of number theory.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Good one but I think the OP was searching for a finite expression.
    $endgroup$
    – BPP
    Jul 29 '13 at 11:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Any hints for why this works?
    $endgroup$
    – user7530
    Jul 30 '13 at 8:49






  • 13




    $begingroup$
    @metacompactness: Don't go presuming such things. This is a beautiful answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick
    Jul 30 '13 at 13:06










  • $begingroup$
    @Nick you didn't specify if you wanted a finite expression or an infinite one but your two approximations suggest a finite expression.
    $endgroup$
    – BPP
    Jul 30 '13 at 15:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you want an approximate finite expression, then you can just cut off the continued fraction.
    $endgroup$
    – A. Rex
    Jul 31 '13 at 21:47



















31












$begingroup$

Rather than just give you a fish, I'll teach you how to fish:



$(phi - 1)phi = 1$



$phi^2 - phi - 1 = 0$



$phi = dfrac{1 + sqrt{5}}{2}$



Now replace the integers there with a load of self-cancelling $pi$/$e$ terms which ultimately give you the values 1, 5, (2 or 4) to taste (-:



Throw in some complex numbers too if you're feeling brave



For example:



$phi = dfrac{pi^e}{pi^e + e^{,textrm{ln}left(piright)times e}}+sqrt{dfrac{tfrac{pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e}{pi e}}{tfrac{pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + e pi e^{,ipi}}{pi e}}}$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Care to explain the downvote?
    $endgroup$
    – Mark K Cowan
    Jul 28 '13 at 22:43






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This is a joke just as vadim's answer.
    $endgroup$
    – BPP
    Jul 29 '13 at 11:30






  • 20




    $begingroup$
    These "joke" solutions are perfectly correct. Easy math isn't wrong math. If you look at the original question, these answers are following all the rules.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt
    Jul 29 '13 at 17:10






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Matt: Sure, they are correct and are very much amusing but they can be simplified down to $(1+sqrt 5)/2$ by even those who aren't that good in math. The best answer should be one that is both correct and isn't so intuitively understandable to the common man.
    $endgroup$
    – Nick
    Jul 30 '13 at 13:15








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    @Nick, why should it be good if something is not understandable by the common man? Is maths about creating secrets that only mathematicians understand at the end? No. It's about giving precise solutions to problems that we find interesting. The simpler the solution, the better. If the solution looks like a joke, then you phrased the question unprecise.
    $endgroup$
    – Turion
    Aug 2 '13 at 11:50



















27












$begingroup$

$sqrt e approx 1.64872$ is not "very close" to $phi approx 1.61803$.



Here is a very good approximation:
$$
phi approx frac{1967981,pi-314270,e}{3293083}
$$



The error is about $2 times 10^{-16}$.



This relation was found using FindIntegerNullVector[N@{Pi,E,(1+Sqrt[5])/2}] with Mathematica (sadly, Wolfram Alpha does not understand this).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    21












    $begingroup$

    RIES can find solutions to approximation problems like this. Running



    ries -NlLeE -s -l6 2.718281828459045235360287471


    (which says "find $e$ without using logarithms, exponentials, or e itself" -- $pi$ and $phi$ are already in by default)



    gives, among others,



    $$phiapprox e-sqrt[3]{pi}$$
    $$phiapproxfrac{5(1+pi)}{e}-6 qquad text{(to 7 decimal places)}$$



    ries -SpfnrsqSCT+-*/^v -s -l6 2.718281828459045235360287471


    (which says "find $e$ using only $pi$, $phi$, and the operators $+-cdot/sqrt[n]{ } text{^}sincostan$"... basically, banning numbers too) gives



    $$phiapprox e/sqrt{pi-1/pi} qquad text{(2 places)}$$
    $$phi^2approx(e-1/pi)^2-pi qquad text{(3 places)}$$



    and many more. (If I was more careful I would have had it solve for $phi$ in the first place...)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Nice to know about ries!
      $endgroup$
      – lhf
      Jul 31 '13 at 3:05










    • $begingroup$
      Neat!$left . right .$
      $endgroup$
      – Thomas
      Aug 2 '13 at 11:57










    • $begingroup$
      On my machine, $e - sqrt[3]pi$ is about 1.254, which doesn't seem like a very good approximation.
      $endgroup$
      – Tanner Swett
      Aug 2 '13 at 21:40










    • $begingroup$
      @TannerSwett: It's possible I did the conversion wrong as I typed it up. As you can see from the commands I actually asked RIES to find $e$ not $varphi$ and so I converted before posting.
      $endgroup$
      – Charles
      Aug 3 '13 at 0:54



















    16












    $begingroup$

    An approximation: $$phi approx frac { 7pi }{ 5e } =1.618018$$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Good attempt. Surprisingly, this was one of the approximations I did initially.
      $endgroup$
      – Nick
      Jul 30 '13 at 13:32










    • $begingroup$
      J. DePompeo (2004) wrote the equivalent $$frac{5phi e}{7pi}approx 1$$ (formula 34 in mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html)
      $endgroup$
      – Jaume Oliver Lafont
      Jan 26 '16 at 10:43



















    14












    $begingroup$

    Here is another suggestion:



    $$phi=frac{pi}{pi+pi}+sqrt{frac{e+e+e+e+e}{e+e+e+e}}$$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      yet another joke!!
      $endgroup$
      – BPP
      Jul 29 '13 at 11:30






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      The original are always better ;-)
      $endgroup$
      – Luc M
      Jul 29 '13 at 15:42



















    12












    $begingroup$

    If you define the sequence $a_1 = a_2 = -e^{ipi}$, $a_k = a_{k-1} + a_{k-2}$, then $lim_{n rightarrow infty} frac {a_{n+1}}{a_n} = phi$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 13




      $begingroup$
      You can even let $a_1 = e$ and $a_2 = pi$ if you'd like. The initial values don't much matter as long as they're positive.
      $endgroup$
      – A. Rex
      Jul 29 '13 at 8:57






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      ...which boils down to the Fibonacci sequence, for anyone who is curious as to how it works!
      $endgroup$
      – Mark K Cowan
      Jul 31 '13 at 15:26



















    11












    $begingroup$

    It seems all the answers so far approaching this from a theoretical perspective are approaching this in terms of exact answers, but we can say a lot about when good approximations are possible too. Of course, some answers have already provided silly ways to do this exactly, so approximations may seem unnecessary, but it provides a nice avenue for some basic transcendental number theory.



    It is an unsolved problem, which virtually everyone believes to be true, that $frac e pi$ is irrational. Let's assume for the moment that this is true. Then it's a trivial corollary of a well-known theorem that if $alpha$ is an irrational number, and $beta$ is any real number, there exist arbitrarily good approximations $p + q alpha approx beta$ with $p,q$ integers. That means, taking $alpha = frac e pi$ and $beta = frac phi pi$, we can find integers $p,q$ such that $p e + q pi$ approximates $phi$ to any tolerance you desire.



    One such approximation could be $357 pi - 412 e = 1.61646... approx 1.61803... = phi$, which is accurate to one part in 1000. One can do better, but this at least demonstrates the principle. If the 357 and 412 bother you, you may imagine that I've written a sum with 729 terms on the left hand side instead, 357 of which are $pi$ and 412 of which are $-e$.



    So what if, against all bets, $frac e pi$ is rational? Then the opposite is true. There is a single best approximation to $phi$ of the form $p e + q pi$, which is not exact, and there are infinitely many choices of $p$ and $q$ which yield the same approximation. This is because, in that case every number of the form $p e + q pi$ is a rational multiple of $e$ with denominator dividing $d$ the denominator of $frac e pi$ when written as an integer fraction in lowest terms. Of course, none of these can be exact, since they're all either 0 or transcendental, while $phi$ is algebraic, and since the set of all such numbers is discrete (being just $frac{e}{d}mathbb Z$ where $d$ is the denominator mentioned above), $phi$ is not in its closure. That is to say, the irrationality of $frac e pi$ is equivalent to the existence of arbitrarily good approximations to $phi$ of the form $p e + q pi$ for integers $p$ and $q$. Of course, the current lower bounds on $d$ are likely to be extremely large since we know plenty of digits of both $e$ and $pi$ and haven't yet found any such rational number with value $frac e pi$, so there are going to be very good approximations for all practical purposes, but eventually there has to be a single best one, in exactly the same way that there's a single best integer approximation to $phi$ (namely 2).



    Luckily, even in this case we can still construct arbitrarily good approximations to $phi$ based on $e$ and $pi$; just not in the same way. Of course, for some $n$, it must be true that $sqrt[n] frac{e}{pi}$ is irrational (this is true for any real number other than 0 and 1, and $frac e pi$ is clearly neither). We can play exactly the same game as we did before to get arbitrarily good approximations of the form $p sqrt[n] e + q sqrt[n] pi$ to $phi$ with $p$ and $q$ integers. If the appearance of this $n$ bothers you, we can even take $n$ to be a power of 2 so that $sqrt[n] {}$ can be written as a repeated composition of $sqrt {}$, i.e. $sqrt[8]{x}=sqrt {sqrt {sqrt{x}}}$.



    Note that in all cases above, it's (as far as I know) unknown whether the forms given can exactly represent $phi$, though all bets are to the negative. Certainly there are no known cases in which it does represent $phi$ exactly, since that would give a proof that $e$ and $pi$ are not algebraically independent (a major unsolved problem). In principle, there could be cases where it's definitely known that the form does not represent $phi$ exactly, but really there's just about nothing about problems like this so it would surprise me if there are any cases known.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      5












      $begingroup$

      form this $phi = 2cos(frac{pi }{5})$ and euler formula $e^{ix} = cos(x) + isin(x)$ you can conclude this one $phi= 2e^{ifrac{pi}{5}}-2isin(frac{pi}{5})$. [check]






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 1




        $begingroup$
        This is a good approach! Check out my answer for how to turn this into an especially clean expression.
        $endgroup$
        – A. Rex
        Jul 30 '13 at 0:16



















      3












      $begingroup$

      Using the 5 constants of Euler's identity $ e^{ipi} + 1 = 0 $ it is possible to include $ varphi $ into an equation to give an identity containing six constants as follows:
      $$ e^{frac{ipi}{1+varphi}} + e^{-frac{ipi}{1+varphi}} + e^{frac{ipi}{varphi}} + e^{-frac{ipi}{varphi}} = 0 $$
      See article and
      OEIS Sequence A193537






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$





















        2












        $begingroup$

        An approximation with an accuracy similar to that of $piapprox3$ (error<5%) is given by the sixth root of Gelfond's constant,



        $$e^{frac{pi}{6}}approx phi$$



        with rational term series



        $$e^{frac{pi}{6}}=sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{left(e^{frac{pi}{2}} - (-1)^k e^{-frac{pi}{2}}right)Gammaleft(frac{k+i}{2}right)Gammaleft(frac{k-i}{2}right)}{4pi k!}$$



        Rational series representation of $e^pi$






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$





















          2












          $begingroup$

          Here's one I've found: $$phiapproxfrac epileft(frac1{sqrt3}+frac1{sqrt{pi^{sqrt{163}-sqrtpi}}}right)+sqrt{frac{e^{sqrt[3]{pi}+1}}{3pi}}=1.618131648cdots$$



          And here's some more interesting near-integer identities...






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            This is similar to my initial aproach and those coincidences in the link are nice. What makes 163 special?
            $endgroup$
            – Nick
            Aug 1 '18 at 19:32










          • $begingroup$
            It's the largest Heegner number, and $exp(pisqrt{163})$ is very close to an integer. This has more 'coincidences'.
            $endgroup$
            – TheSimpliFire
            Aug 2 '18 at 7:22





















          2












          $begingroup$

          If we are allowing non-closed-form expressions then we have the following infinte series representations:





          From Cloitre, Borwein and Chamberland a BPP formula in a $verb/non-integer base/$



          $$pi^2=50sum_{k=0}^infty{1 above 1.5pt phi^{5k}}Bigg({phi^{-2}above 1.5pt (5k+1)^2 } -{phi^{-1}above 1.5pt (5k+2)^2 }- {phi^{-2}above 1.5pt (5k+3)^2 }+ {phi^{-5}above 1.5pt (5k+4)^2 } +{2phi^{-5}above 1.5pt (5k+5)^2 } Bigg)$$





          There is also the following:



          $$phi=2sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^{n}{left(frac{pi}{5}right)^{2n} above 1.5pt (2n)!}$$



          ; which is play on a well known infinite series for the square root of $2.$ In particular just consider numbers written as $2cos(frac{pi}{k})$ and take $k=5.$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












            protected by Community May 19 '17 at 17:52



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














            16 Answers
            16






            active

            oldest

            votes








            16 Answers
            16






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            226












            $begingroup$

            $e$ and $pi$ are transcendental numbers, that is to say they are not the solution of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It's not hard to see that if $x$ is transcendental, then the following are also transcendental:




            • $x pm c$ for any rational number $c$,

            • $kx$ for any nonzero rational number $k$ (so $x/k$ too),

            • $x^n$ for any whole number $n > 1$,

            • $sqrt{x}$ and indeed $sqrt[n]{x}$ for any whole number $n > 1$.


            $phi$ is not transcendental: it is the solution to a simple quadratic polynomial, so it won't be the result of any operations like the above applied to a transcendental number. The only way you're going to get an expression exactly equal to $phi$ using only one of $e$ and $pi$ and the above operations is by not really using them at all, e.g. cancelling them out completely, as other answers do.



            What if you use both $e$ and $pi$? Well, somewhat absurdly, it's not even known if $e + pi$ is irrational, let alone transcendental! So with our current level of knowledge we can't say whether you can make $phi$ exactly in a nontrivial way. However, I think most mathematicians would be extremely surprised if it turned out that $e + pi$ or anything like it (apart from $e^{ipi}$ and its family, of course!) were not transcendental, and hence mostly useless for constructing something like $phi$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 26




              $begingroup$
              The other answers are cute, but this adds a lot more depth. Thanks for the contribution!
              $endgroup$
              – Beska
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:31






            • 12




              $begingroup$
              Bravo! I think the OP's underlying question is whether $phi$ is fundamentally connected to $pi$ and/or $e$ much in the same way as $pi$ and $e$ are interconnected. The answer is - of course - "no, it's not", for the reasons outlined by this answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Euro Micelli
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:33






            • 7




              $begingroup$
              Would you consider $varphi = e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}$ "a nontrivial way"? I suppose it's a member of "$e^{ipi}$ and its family"..
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 29 '13 at 9:01






            • 8




              $begingroup$
              $+1$. I don't know why the above joke is upvoted more than this answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Mo_
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:03








            • 8




              $begingroup$
              And I don't get, why is this answer upvoted at all. It is't even the answer.
              $endgroup$
              – gukoff
              Jul 29 '13 at 19:43
















            226












            $begingroup$

            $e$ and $pi$ are transcendental numbers, that is to say they are not the solution of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It's not hard to see that if $x$ is transcendental, then the following are also transcendental:




            • $x pm c$ for any rational number $c$,

            • $kx$ for any nonzero rational number $k$ (so $x/k$ too),

            • $x^n$ for any whole number $n > 1$,

            • $sqrt{x}$ and indeed $sqrt[n]{x}$ for any whole number $n > 1$.


            $phi$ is not transcendental: it is the solution to a simple quadratic polynomial, so it won't be the result of any operations like the above applied to a transcendental number. The only way you're going to get an expression exactly equal to $phi$ using only one of $e$ and $pi$ and the above operations is by not really using them at all, e.g. cancelling them out completely, as other answers do.



            What if you use both $e$ and $pi$? Well, somewhat absurdly, it's not even known if $e + pi$ is irrational, let alone transcendental! So with our current level of knowledge we can't say whether you can make $phi$ exactly in a nontrivial way. However, I think most mathematicians would be extremely surprised if it turned out that $e + pi$ or anything like it (apart from $e^{ipi}$ and its family, of course!) were not transcendental, and hence mostly useless for constructing something like $phi$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 26




              $begingroup$
              The other answers are cute, but this adds a lot more depth. Thanks for the contribution!
              $endgroup$
              – Beska
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:31






            • 12




              $begingroup$
              Bravo! I think the OP's underlying question is whether $phi$ is fundamentally connected to $pi$ and/or $e$ much in the same way as $pi$ and $e$ are interconnected. The answer is - of course - "no, it's not", for the reasons outlined by this answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Euro Micelli
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:33






            • 7




              $begingroup$
              Would you consider $varphi = e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}$ "a nontrivial way"? I suppose it's a member of "$e^{ipi}$ and its family"..
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 29 '13 at 9:01






            • 8




              $begingroup$
              $+1$. I don't know why the above joke is upvoted more than this answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Mo_
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:03








            • 8




              $begingroup$
              And I don't get, why is this answer upvoted at all. It is't even the answer.
              $endgroup$
              – gukoff
              Jul 29 '13 at 19:43














            226












            226








            226





            $begingroup$

            $e$ and $pi$ are transcendental numbers, that is to say they are not the solution of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It's not hard to see that if $x$ is transcendental, then the following are also transcendental:




            • $x pm c$ for any rational number $c$,

            • $kx$ for any nonzero rational number $k$ (so $x/k$ too),

            • $x^n$ for any whole number $n > 1$,

            • $sqrt{x}$ and indeed $sqrt[n]{x}$ for any whole number $n > 1$.


            $phi$ is not transcendental: it is the solution to a simple quadratic polynomial, so it won't be the result of any operations like the above applied to a transcendental number. The only way you're going to get an expression exactly equal to $phi$ using only one of $e$ and $pi$ and the above operations is by not really using them at all, e.g. cancelling them out completely, as other answers do.



            What if you use both $e$ and $pi$? Well, somewhat absurdly, it's not even known if $e + pi$ is irrational, let alone transcendental! So with our current level of knowledge we can't say whether you can make $phi$ exactly in a nontrivial way. However, I think most mathematicians would be extremely surprised if it turned out that $e + pi$ or anything like it (apart from $e^{ipi}$ and its family, of course!) were not transcendental, and hence mostly useless for constructing something like $phi$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            $e$ and $pi$ are transcendental numbers, that is to say they are not the solution of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It's not hard to see that if $x$ is transcendental, then the following are also transcendental:




            • $x pm c$ for any rational number $c$,

            • $kx$ for any nonzero rational number $k$ (so $x/k$ too),

            • $x^n$ for any whole number $n > 1$,

            • $sqrt{x}$ and indeed $sqrt[n]{x}$ for any whole number $n > 1$.


            $phi$ is not transcendental: it is the solution to a simple quadratic polynomial, so it won't be the result of any operations like the above applied to a transcendental number. The only way you're going to get an expression exactly equal to $phi$ using only one of $e$ and $pi$ and the above operations is by not really using them at all, e.g. cancelling them out completely, as other answers do.



            What if you use both $e$ and $pi$? Well, somewhat absurdly, it's not even known if $e + pi$ is irrational, let alone transcendental! So with our current level of knowledge we can't say whether you can make $phi$ exactly in a nontrivial way. However, I think most mathematicians would be extremely surprised if it turned out that $e + pi$ or anything like it (apart from $e^{ipi}$ and its family, of course!) were not transcendental, and hence mostly useless for constructing something like $phi$.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Jul 29 '13 at 17:40









            vadim123

            75.7k897189




            75.7k897189










            answered Jul 29 '13 at 1:24









            Ben MillwoodBen Millwood

            11.2k32049




            11.2k32049








            • 26




              $begingroup$
              The other answers are cute, but this adds a lot more depth. Thanks for the contribution!
              $endgroup$
              – Beska
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:31






            • 12




              $begingroup$
              Bravo! I think the OP's underlying question is whether $phi$ is fundamentally connected to $pi$ and/or $e$ much in the same way as $pi$ and $e$ are interconnected. The answer is - of course - "no, it's not", for the reasons outlined by this answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Euro Micelli
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:33






            • 7




              $begingroup$
              Would you consider $varphi = e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}$ "a nontrivial way"? I suppose it's a member of "$e^{ipi}$ and its family"..
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 29 '13 at 9:01






            • 8




              $begingroup$
              $+1$. I don't know why the above joke is upvoted more than this answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Mo_
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:03








            • 8




              $begingroup$
              And I don't get, why is this answer upvoted at all. It is't even the answer.
              $endgroup$
              – gukoff
              Jul 29 '13 at 19:43














            • 26




              $begingroup$
              The other answers are cute, but this adds a lot more depth. Thanks for the contribution!
              $endgroup$
              – Beska
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:31






            • 12




              $begingroup$
              Bravo! I think the OP's underlying question is whether $phi$ is fundamentally connected to $pi$ and/or $e$ much in the same way as $pi$ and $e$ are interconnected. The answer is - of course - "no, it's not", for the reasons outlined by this answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Euro Micelli
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:33






            • 7




              $begingroup$
              Would you consider $varphi = e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}$ "a nontrivial way"? I suppose it's a member of "$e^{ipi}$ and its family"..
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 29 '13 at 9:01






            • 8




              $begingroup$
              $+1$. I don't know why the above joke is upvoted more than this answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Mo_
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:03








            • 8




              $begingroup$
              And I don't get, why is this answer upvoted at all. It is't even the answer.
              $endgroup$
              – gukoff
              Jul 29 '13 at 19:43








            26




            26




            $begingroup$
            The other answers are cute, but this adds a lot more depth. Thanks for the contribution!
            $endgroup$
            – Beska
            Jul 29 '13 at 1:31




            $begingroup$
            The other answers are cute, but this adds a lot more depth. Thanks for the contribution!
            $endgroup$
            – Beska
            Jul 29 '13 at 1:31




            12




            12




            $begingroup$
            Bravo! I think the OP's underlying question is whether $phi$ is fundamentally connected to $pi$ and/or $e$ much in the same way as $pi$ and $e$ are interconnected. The answer is - of course - "no, it's not", for the reasons outlined by this answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Euro Micelli
            Jul 29 '13 at 1:33




            $begingroup$
            Bravo! I think the OP's underlying question is whether $phi$ is fundamentally connected to $pi$ and/or $e$ much in the same way as $pi$ and $e$ are interconnected. The answer is - of course - "no, it's not", for the reasons outlined by this answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Euro Micelli
            Jul 29 '13 at 1:33




            7




            7




            $begingroup$
            Would you consider $varphi = e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}$ "a nontrivial way"? I suppose it's a member of "$e^{ipi}$ and its family"..
            $endgroup$
            – A. Rex
            Jul 29 '13 at 9:01




            $begingroup$
            Would you consider $varphi = e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}$ "a nontrivial way"? I suppose it's a member of "$e^{ipi}$ and its family"..
            $endgroup$
            – A. Rex
            Jul 29 '13 at 9:01




            8




            8




            $begingroup$
            $+1$. I don't know why the above joke is upvoted more than this answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Mo_
            Jul 29 '13 at 11:03






            $begingroup$
            $+1$. I don't know why the above joke is upvoted more than this answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Mo_
            Jul 29 '13 at 11:03






            8




            8




            $begingroup$
            And I don't get, why is this answer upvoted at all. It is't even the answer.
            $endgroup$
            – gukoff
            Jul 29 '13 at 19:43




            $begingroup$
            And I don't get, why is this answer upvoted at all. It is't even the answer.
            $endgroup$
            – gukoff
            Jul 29 '13 at 19:43











            372












            $begingroup$

            The following is exact. :-)



            $$phi=frac{frac{pi}{pi}+sqrt{frac{e+e+e+e+e}{e}}}{frac{e}{e}+frac{pi}{pi}}$$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 56




              $begingroup$
              +1 So cute! ${}{}$
              $endgroup$
              – Jyrki Lahtonen
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:14






            • 40




              $begingroup$
              when I saw this, I knew that moment, the course of my life is changing
              $endgroup$
              – user85461
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:24






            • 33




              $begingroup$
              This might be the most upvoted goofy answer...nice!+1
              $endgroup$
              – DonAntonio
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:27








            • 24




              $begingroup$
              This makes a great math joke!
              $endgroup$
              – zerosofthezeta
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:35






            • 31




              $begingroup$
              I should have expected an answer like this the moment I posed my question.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:40
















            372












            $begingroup$

            The following is exact. :-)



            $$phi=frac{frac{pi}{pi}+sqrt{frac{e+e+e+e+e}{e}}}{frac{e}{e}+frac{pi}{pi}}$$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 56




              $begingroup$
              +1 So cute! ${}{}$
              $endgroup$
              – Jyrki Lahtonen
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:14






            • 40




              $begingroup$
              when I saw this, I knew that moment, the course of my life is changing
              $endgroup$
              – user85461
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:24






            • 33




              $begingroup$
              This might be the most upvoted goofy answer...nice!+1
              $endgroup$
              – DonAntonio
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:27








            • 24




              $begingroup$
              This makes a great math joke!
              $endgroup$
              – zerosofthezeta
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:35






            • 31




              $begingroup$
              I should have expected an answer like this the moment I posed my question.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:40














            372












            372








            372





            $begingroup$

            The following is exact. :-)



            $$phi=frac{frac{pi}{pi}+sqrt{frac{e+e+e+e+e}{e}}}{frac{e}{e}+frac{pi}{pi}}$$






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            The following is exact. :-)



            $$phi=frac{frac{pi}{pi}+sqrt{frac{e+e+e+e+e}{e}}}{frac{e}{e}+frac{pi}{pi}}$$







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Jul 28 '13 at 21:13









            vadim123vadim123

            75.7k897189




            75.7k897189








            • 56




              $begingroup$
              +1 So cute! ${}{}$
              $endgroup$
              – Jyrki Lahtonen
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:14






            • 40




              $begingroup$
              when I saw this, I knew that moment, the course of my life is changing
              $endgroup$
              – user85461
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:24






            • 33




              $begingroup$
              This might be the most upvoted goofy answer...nice!+1
              $endgroup$
              – DonAntonio
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:27








            • 24




              $begingroup$
              This makes a great math joke!
              $endgroup$
              – zerosofthezeta
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:35






            • 31




              $begingroup$
              I should have expected an answer like this the moment I posed my question.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:40














            • 56




              $begingroup$
              +1 So cute! ${}{}$
              $endgroup$
              – Jyrki Lahtonen
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:14






            • 40




              $begingroup$
              when I saw this, I knew that moment, the course of my life is changing
              $endgroup$
              – user85461
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:24






            • 33




              $begingroup$
              This might be the most upvoted goofy answer...nice!+1
              $endgroup$
              – DonAntonio
              Jul 28 '13 at 21:27








            • 24




              $begingroup$
              This makes a great math joke!
              $endgroup$
              – zerosofthezeta
              Jul 29 '13 at 1:35






            • 31




              $begingroup$
              I should have expected an answer like this the moment I posed my question.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:40








            56




            56




            $begingroup$
            +1 So cute! ${}{}$
            $endgroup$
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Jul 28 '13 at 21:14




            $begingroup$
            +1 So cute! ${}{}$
            $endgroup$
            – Jyrki Lahtonen
            Jul 28 '13 at 21:14




            40




            40




            $begingroup$
            when I saw this, I knew that moment, the course of my life is changing
            $endgroup$
            – user85461
            Jul 28 '13 at 21:24




            $begingroup$
            when I saw this, I knew that moment, the course of my life is changing
            $endgroup$
            – user85461
            Jul 28 '13 at 21:24




            33




            33




            $begingroup$
            This might be the most upvoted goofy answer...nice!+1
            $endgroup$
            – DonAntonio
            Jul 28 '13 at 21:27






            $begingroup$
            This might be the most upvoted goofy answer...nice!+1
            $endgroup$
            – DonAntonio
            Jul 28 '13 at 21:27






            24




            24




            $begingroup$
            This makes a great math joke!
            $endgroup$
            – zerosofthezeta
            Jul 29 '13 at 1:35




            $begingroup$
            This makes a great math joke!
            $endgroup$
            – zerosofthezeta
            Jul 29 '13 at 1:35




            31




            31




            $begingroup$
            I should have expected an answer like this the moment I posed my question.
            $endgroup$
            – Nick
            Jul 30 '13 at 13:40




            $begingroup$
            I should have expected an answer like this the moment I posed my question.
            $endgroup$
            – Nick
            Jul 30 '13 at 13:40











            165












            $begingroup$

            At the time of writing, three of the other answers simply express the golden ratio by using expressions like $e/e$ and $pi/pi$ to get small integers. The fourth and final one discusses why a good solution is unlikely.



            I believe using the imaginary unit $i=sqrt{-1}$ results in the following very elegant solution:
            $$ varphi = e^{ipi/5} + e^{-ipi/5}. $$



            Edit: robjohn notes that one can directly derive the fundamental identity for the golden ratio $varphi^2 = varphi + 1$ from this expression:



            $$
            begin{align}
            color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2
            &=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\
            &=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\
            &=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\
            &=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1
            end{align}.
            $$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Even though it comes from the fact that $varphi = frac{1+sqrt{5}}{2}$, it's neat seeing it in this way.
              $endgroup$
              – Cameron Williams
              Jul 29 '13 at 3:17






            • 20




              $begingroup$
              This answer is related to the geometric fact if you form a star inside a regular pentagon, the ratio of the side of the star to that of the pentagon is $2cosfrac{pi}{5} = varphi$.
              $endgroup$
              – achille hui
              Jul 29 '13 at 7:05






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @CameronWilliams: I'm not sure what you mean, though of course that is the golden ratio. If you change the $5$s in my expression to $6$s, say, you don't get $(1+sqrt{6})/2$. (In fact, you get $sqrt{3}$.)
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 29 '13 at 8:55






            • 19




              $begingroup$
              This is a great answer to a not particularly great question. 'Your idle curiosity is the gateway to deep and beautiful mathematics which you are capable of understanding' - the best thing a teacher can tell you. Sad that the 'funny' answer has more than three times as many upvotes
              $endgroup$
              – jwg
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:25






            • 8




              $begingroup$
              (+1) I didn't see your answer until after I posted, so I deleted mine. However, note that $$ begin{align} color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2 &=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\ &=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\ &=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\ &=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1 end{align} $$
              $endgroup$
              – robjohn
              Jul 31 '13 at 0:42


















            165












            $begingroup$

            At the time of writing, three of the other answers simply express the golden ratio by using expressions like $e/e$ and $pi/pi$ to get small integers. The fourth and final one discusses why a good solution is unlikely.



            I believe using the imaginary unit $i=sqrt{-1}$ results in the following very elegant solution:
            $$ varphi = e^{ipi/5} + e^{-ipi/5}. $$



            Edit: robjohn notes that one can directly derive the fundamental identity for the golden ratio $varphi^2 = varphi + 1$ from this expression:



            $$
            begin{align}
            color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2
            &=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\
            &=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\
            &=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\
            &=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1
            end{align}.
            $$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Even though it comes from the fact that $varphi = frac{1+sqrt{5}}{2}$, it's neat seeing it in this way.
              $endgroup$
              – Cameron Williams
              Jul 29 '13 at 3:17






            • 20




              $begingroup$
              This answer is related to the geometric fact if you form a star inside a regular pentagon, the ratio of the side of the star to that of the pentagon is $2cosfrac{pi}{5} = varphi$.
              $endgroup$
              – achille hui
              Jul 29 '13 at 7:05






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @CameronWilliams: I'm not sure what you mean, though of course that is the golden ratio. If you change the $5$s in my expression to $6$s, say, you don't get $(1+sqrt{6})/2$. (In fact, you get $sqrt{3}$.)
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 29 '13 at 8:55






            • 19




              $begingroup$
              This is a great answer to a not particularly great question. 'Your idle curiosity is the gateway to deep and beautiful mathematics which you are capable of understanding' - the best thing a teacher can tell you. Sad that the 'funny' answer has more than three times as many upvotes
              $endgroup$
              – jwg
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:25






            • 8




              $begingroup$
              (+1) I didn't see your answer until after I posted, so I deleted mine. However, note that $$ begin{align} color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2 &=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\ &=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\ &=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\ &=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1 end{align} $$
              $endgroup$
              – robjohn
              Jul 31 '13 at 0:42
















            165












            165








            165





            $begingroup$

            At the time of writing, three of the other answers simply express the golden ratio by using expressions like $e/e$ and $pi/pi$ to get small integers. The fourth and final one discusses why a good solution is unlikely.



            I believe using the imaginary unit $i=sqrt{-1}$ results in the following very elegant solution:
            $$ varphi = e^{ipi/5} + e^{-ipi/5}. $$



            Edit: robjohn notes that one can directly derive the fundamental identity for the golden ratio $varphi^2 = varphi + 1$ from this expression:



            $$
            begin{align}
            color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2
            &=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\
            &=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\
            &=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\
            &=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1
            end{align}.
            $$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            At the time of writing, three of the other answers simply express the golden ratio by using expressions like $e/e$ and $pi/pi$ to get small integers. The fourth and final one discusses why a good solution is unlikely.



            I believe using the imaginary unit $i=sqrt{-1}$ results in the following very elegant solution:
            $$ varphi = e^{ipi/5} + e^{-ipi/5}. $$



            Edit: robjohn notes that one can directly derive the fundamental identity for the golden ratio $varphi^2 = varphi + 1$ from this expression:



            $$
            begin{align}
            color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2
            &=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\
            &=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\
            &=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\
            &=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1
            end{align}.
            $$







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:20









            Community

            1




            1










            answered Jul 29 '13 at 2:44









            A. RexA. Rex

            1,0981815




            1,0981815








            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Even though it comes from the fact that $varphi = frac{1+sqrt{5}}{2}$, it's neat seeing it in this way.
              $endgroup$
              – Cameron Williams
              Jul 29 '13 at 3:17






            • 20




              $begingroup$
              This answer is related to the geometric fact if you form a star inside a regular pentagon, the ratio of the side of the star to that of the pentagon is $2cosfrac{pi}{5} = varphi$.
              $endgroup$
              – achille hui
              Jul 29 '13 at 7:05






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @CameronWilliams: I'm not sure what you mean, though of course that is the golden ratio. If you change the $5$s in my expression to $6$s, say, you don't get $(1+sqrt{6})/2$. (In fact, you get $sqrt{3}$.)
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 29 '13 at 8:55






            • 19




              $begingroup$
              This is a great answer to a not particularly great question. 'Your idle curiosity is the gateway to deep and beautiful mathematics which you are capable of understanding' - the best thing a teacher can tell you. Sad that the 'funny' answer has more than three times as many upvotes
              $endgroup$
              – jwg
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:25






            • 8




              $begingroup$
              (+1) I didn't see your answer until after I posted, so I deleted mine. However, note that $$ begin{align} color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2 &=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\ &=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\ &=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\ &=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1 end{align} $$
              $endgroup$
              – robjohn
              Jul 31 '13 at 0:42
















            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Even though it comes from the fact that $varphi = frac{1+sqrt{5}}{2}$, it's neat seeing it in this way.
              $endgroup$
              – Cameron Williams
              Jul 29 '13 at 3:17






            • 20




              $begingroup$
              This answer is related to the geometric fact if you form a star inside a regular pentagon, the ratio of the side of the star to that of the pentagon is $2cosfrac{pi}{5} = varphi$.
              $endgroup$
              – achille hui
              Jul 29 '13 at 7:05






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @CameronWilliams: I'm not sure what you mean, though of course that is the golden ratio. If you change the $5$s in my expression to $6$s, say, you don't get $(1+sqrt{6})/2$. (In fact, you get $sqrt{3}$.)
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 29 '13 at 8:55






            • 19




              $begingroup$
              This is a great answer to a not particularly great question. 'Your idle curiosity is the gateway to deep and beautiful mathematics which you are capable of understanding' - the best thing a teacher can tell you. Sad that the 'funny' answer has more than three times as many upvotes
              $endgroup$
              – jwg
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:25






            • 8




              $begingroup$
              (+1) I didn't see your answer until after I posted, so I deleted mine. However, note that $$ begin{align} color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2 &=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\ &=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\ &=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\ &=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1 end{align} $$
              $endgroup$
              – robjohn
              Jul 31 '13 at 0:42










            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            Even though it comes from the fact that $varphi = frac{1+sqrt{5}}{2}$, it's neat seeing it in this way.
            $endgroup$
            – Cameron Williams
            Jul 29 '13 at 3:17




            $begingroup$
            Even though it comes from the fact that $varphi = frac{1+sqrt{5}}{2}$, it's neat seeing it in this way.
            $endgroup$
            – Cameron Williams
            Jul 29 '13 at 3:17




            20




            20




            $begingroup$
            This answer is related to the geometric fact if you form a star inside a regular pentagon, the ratio of the side of the star to that of the pentagon is $2cosfrac{pi}{5} = varphi$.
            $endgroup$
            – achille hui
            Jul 29 '13 at 7:05




            $begingroup$
            This answer is related to the geometric fact if you form a star inside a regular pentagon, the ratio of the side of the star to that of the pentagon is $2cosfrac{pi}{5} = varphi$.
            $endgroup$
            – achille hui
            Jul 29 '13 at 7:05




            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            @CameronWilliams: I'm not sure what you mean, though of course that is the golden ratio. If you change the $5$s in my expression to $6$s, say, you don't get $(1+sqrt{6})/2$. (In fact, you get $sqrt{3}$.)
            $endgroup$
            – A. Rex
            Jul 29 '13 at 8:55




            $begingroup$
            @CameronWilliams: I'm not sure what you mean, though of course that is the golden ratio. If you change the $5$s in my expression to $6$s, say, you don't get $(1+sqrt{6})/2$. (In fact, you get $sqrt{3}$.)
            $endgroup$
            – A. Rex
            Jul 29 '13 at 8:55




            19




            19




            $begingroup$
            This is a great answer to a not particularly great question. 'Your idle curiosity is the gateway to deep and beautiful mathematics which you are capable of understanding' - the best thing a teacher can tell you. Sad that the 'funny' answer has more than three times as many upvotes
            $endgroup$
            – jwg
            Jul 29 '13 at 11:25




            $begingroup$
            This is a great answer to a not particularly great question. 'Your idle curiosity is the gateway to deep and beautiful mathematics which you are capable of understanding' - the best thing a teacher can tell you. Sad that the 'funny' answer has more than three times as many upvotes
            $endgroup$
            – jwg
            Jul 29 '13 at 11:25




            8




            8




            $begingroup$
            (+1) I didn't see your answer until after I posted, so I deleted mine. However, note that $$ begin{align} color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2 &=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\ &=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\ &=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\ &=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1 end{align} $$
            $endgroup$
            – robjohn
            Jul 31 '13 at 0:42






            $begingroup$
            (+1) I didn't see your answer until after I posted, so I deleted mine. However, note that $$ begin{align} color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}^2 &=e^{i2pi/5}+2+e^{-i2pi/5}\ &=left(e^{i2pi/5}+1+e^{-i2pi/5}right)+1\ &=-left(e^{i4pi/5}+e^{-i4pi/5}right)+1\ &=color{#C00000}{left(e^{ipi/5}+e^{-ipi/5}right)}+1 end{align} $$
            $endgroup$
            – robjohn
            Jul 31 '13 at 0:42













            84












            $begingroup$

            If the discussion is not limited to closed-form expressions, it's worth adding that Ramanujan's first letter to Hardy contains an identity that, with a slight rearrangement, allows one to precisely express $phi$ in terms of $pi$ and $e$:



            $phi =sqrt{frac{1}{2} left(5+sqrt{5}right)}-cfrac{e^{-frac{2 pi}{5}}}{1+cfrac{e^{-2pi}} {1+cfrac{e^{-4pi}} {1+cfrac{e^{-6pi}}
            {1+ddots} } } }$



            Although $phi$ can be found in the radicand (and is thus not isolated on the LHS), Ramanujan's insight is certainly beautiful and is noteworthy for uniting three of the pillars of number theory.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Good one but I think the OP was searching for a finite expression.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:31






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Any hints for why this works?
              $endgroup$
              – user7530
              Jul 30 '13 at 8:49






            • 13




              $begingroup$
              @metacompactness: Don't go presuming such things. This is a beautiful answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:06










            • $begingroup$
              @Nick you didn't specify if you wanted a finite expression or an infinite one but your two approximations suggest a finite expression.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 30 '13 at 15:11






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              If you want an approximate finite expression, then you can just cut off the continued fraction.
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 31 '13 at 21:47
















            84












            $begingroup$

            If the discussion is not limited to closed-form expressions, it's worth adding that Ramanujan's first letter to Hardy contains an identity that, with a slight rearrangement, allows one to precisely express $phi$ in terms of $pi$ and $e$:



            $phi =sqrt{frac{1}{2} left(5+sqrt{5}right)}-cfrac{e^{-frac{2 pi}{5}}}{1+cfrac{e^{-2pi}} {1+cfrac{e^{-4pi}} {1+cfrac{e^{-6pi}}
            {1+ddots} } } }$



            Although $phi$ can be found in the radicand (and is thus not isolated on the LHS), Ramanujan's insight is certainly beautiful and is noteworthy for uniting three of the pillars of number theory.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Good one but I think the OP was searching for a finite expression.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:31






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Any hints for why this works?
              $endgroup$
              – user7530
              Jul 30 '13 at 8:49






            • 13




              $begingroup$
              @metacompactness: Don't go presuming such things. This is a beautiful answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:06










            • $begingroup$
              @Nick you didn't specify if you wanted a finite expression or an infinite one but your two approximations suggest a finite expression.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 30 '13 at 15:11






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              If you want an approximate finite expression, then you can just cut off the continued fraction.
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 31 '13 at 21:47














            84












            84








            84





            $begingroup$

            If the discussion is not limited to closed-form expressions, it's worth adding that Ramanujan's first letter to Hardy contains an identity that, with a slight rearrangement, allows one to precisely express $phi$ in terms of $pi$ and $e$:



            $phi =sqrt{frac{1}{2} left(5+sqrt{5}right)}-cfrac{e^{-frac{2 pi}{5}}}{1+cfrac{e^{-2pi}} {1+cfrac{e^{-4pi}} {1+cfrac{e^{-6pi}}
            {1+ddots} } } }$



            Although $phi$ can be found in the radicand (and is thus not isolated on the LHS), Ramanujan's insight is certainly beautiful and is noteworthy for uniting three of the pillars of number theory.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            If the discussion is not limited to closed-form expressions, it's worth adding that Ramanujan's first letter to Hardy contains an identity that, with a slight rearrangement, allows one to precisely express $phi$ in terms of $pi$ and $e$:



            $phi =sqrt{frac{1}{2} left(5+sqrt{5}right)}-cfrac{e^{-frac{2 pi}{5}}}{1+cfrac{e^{-2pi}} {1+cfrac{e^{-4pi}} {1+cfrac{e^{-6pi}}
            {1+ddots} } } }$



            Although $phi$ can be found in the radicand (and is thus not isolated on the LHS), Ramanujan's insight is certainly beautiful and is noteworthy for uniting three of the pillars of number theory.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Jul 29 '13 at 6:27

























            answered Jul 29 '13 at 6:22









            HarlanHarlan

            1,04187




            1,04187












            • $begingroup$
              Good one but I think the OP was searching for a finite expression.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:31






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Any hints for why this works?
              $endgroup$
              – user7530
              Jul 30 '13 at 8:49






            • 13




              $begingroup$
              @metacompactness: Don't go presuming such things. This is a beautiful answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:06










            • $begingroup$
              @Nick you didn't specify if you wanted a finite expression or an infinite one but your two approximations suggest a finite expression.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 30 '13 at 15:11






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              If you want an approximate finite expression, then you can just cut off the continued fraction.
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 31 '13 at 21:47


















            • $begingroup$
              Good one but I think the OP was searching for a finite expression.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:31






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Any hints for why this works?
              $endgroup$
              – user7530
              Jul 30 '13 at 8:49






            • 13




              $begingroup$
              @metacompactness: Don't go presuming such things. This is a beautiful answer.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:06










            • $begingroup$
              @Nick you didn't specify if you wanted a finite expression or an infinite one but your two approximations suggest a finite expression.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 30 '13 at 15:11






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              If you want an approximate finite expression, then you can just cut off the continued fraction.
              $endgroup$
              – A. Rex
              Jul 31 '13 at 21:47
















            $begingroup$
            Good one but I think the OP was searching for a finite expression.
            $endgroup$
            – BPP
            Jul 29 '13 at 11:31




            $begingroup$
            Good one but I think the OP was searching for a finite expression.
            $endgroup$
            – BPP
            Jul 29 '13 at 11:31




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Any hints for why this works?
            $endgroup$
            – user7530
            Jul 30 '13 at 8:49




            $begingroup$
            Any hints for why this works?
            $endgroup$
            – user7530
            Jul 30 '13 at 8:49




            13




            13




            $begingroup$
            @metacompactness: Don't go presuming such things. This is a beautiful answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Nick
            Jul 30 '13 at 13:06




            $begingroup$
            @metacompactness: Don't go presuming such things. This is a beautiful answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Nick
            Jul 30 '13 at 13:06












            $begingroup$
            @Nick you didn't specify if you wanted a finite expression or an infinite one but your two approximations suggest a finite expression.
            $endgroup$
            – BPP
            Jul 30 '13 at 15:11




            $begingroup$
            @Nick you didn't specify if you wanted a finite expression or an infinite one but your two approximations suggest a finite expression.
            $endgroup$
            – BPP
            Jul 30 '13 at 15:11




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            If you want an approximate finite expression, then you can just cut off the continued fraction.
            $endgroup$
            – A. Rex
            Jul 31 '13 at 21:47




            $begingroup$
            If you want an approximate finite expression, then you can just cut off the continued fraction.
            $endgroup$
            – A. Rex
            Jul 31 '13 at 21:47











            31












            $begingroup$

            Rather than just give you a fish, I'll teach you how to fish:



            $(phi - 1)phi = 1$



            $phi^2 - phi - 1 = 0$



            $phi = dfrac{1 + sqrt{5}}{2}$



            Now replace the integers there with a load of self-cancelling $pi$/$e$ terms which ultimately give you the values 1, 5, (2 or 4) to taste (-:



            Throw in some complex numbers too if you're feeling brave



            For example:



            $phi = dfrac{pi^e}{pi^e + e^{,textrm{ln}left(piright)times e}}+sqrt{dfrac{tfrac{pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e}{pi e}}{tfrac{pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + e pi e^{,ipi}}{pi e}}}$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 11




              $begingroup$
              Care to explain the downvote?
              $endgroup$
              – Mark K Cowan
              Jul 28 '13 at 22:43






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              This is a joke just as vadim's answer.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:30






            • 20




              $begingroup$
              These "joke" solutions are perfectly correct. Easy math isn't wrong math. If you look at the original question, these answers are following all the rules.
              $endgroup$
              – Matt
              Jul 29 '13 at 17:10






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @Matt: Sure, they are correct and are very much amusing but they can be simplified down to $(1+sqrt 5)/2$ by even those who aren't that good in math. The best answer should be one that is both correct and isn't so intuitively understandable to the common man.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:15








            • 7




              $begingroup$
              @Nick, why should it be good if something is not understandable by the common man? Is maths about creating secrets that only mathematicians understand at the end? No. It's about giving precise solutions to problems that we find interesting. The simpler the solution, the better. If the solution looks like a joke, then you phrased the question unprecise.
              $endgroup$
              – Turion
              Aug 2 '13 at 11:50
















            31












            $begingroup$

            Rather than just give you a fish, I'll teach you how to fish:



            $(phi - 1)phi = 1$



            $phi^2 - phi - 1 = 0$



            $phi = dfrac{1 + sqrt{5}}{2}$



            Now replace the integers there with a load of self-cancelling $pi$/$e$ terms which ultimately give you the values 1, 5, (2 or 4) to taste (-:



            Throw in some complex numbers too if you're feeling brave



            For example:



            $phi = dfrac{pi^e}{pi^e + e^{,textrm{ln}left(piright)times e}}+sqrt{dfrac{tfrac{pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e}{pi e}}{tfrac{pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + e pi e^{,ipi}}{pi e}}}$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 11




              $begingroup$
              Care to explain the downvote?
              $endgroup$
              – Mark K Cowan
              Jul 28 '13 at 22:43






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              This is a joke just as vadim's answer.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:30






            • 20




              $begingroup$
              These "joke" solutions are perfectly correct. Easy math isn't wrong math. If you look at the original question, these answers are following all the rules.
              $endgroup$
              – Matt
              Jul 29 '13 at 17:10






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @Matt: Sure, they are correct and are very much amusing but they can be simplified down to $(1+sqrt 5)/2$ by even those who aren't that good in math. The best answer should be one that is both correct and isn't so intuitively understandable to the common man.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:15








            • 7




              $begingroup$
              @Nick, why should it be good if something is not understandable by the common man? Is maths about creating secrets that only mathematicians understand at the end? No. It's about giving precise solutions to problems that we find interesting. The simpler the solution, the better. If the solution looks like a joke, then you phrased the question unprecise.
              $endgroup$
              – Turion
              Aug 2 '13 at 11:50














            31












            31








            31





            $begingroup$

            Rather than just give you a fish, I'll teach you how to fish:



            $(phi - 1)phi = 1$



            $phi^2 - phi - 1 = 0$



            $phi = dfrac{1 + sqrt{5}}{2}$



            Now replace the integers there with a load of self-cancelling $pi$/$e$ terms which ultimately give you the values 1, 5, (2 or 4) to taste (-:



            Throw in some complex numbers too if you're feeling brave



            For example:



            $phi = dfrac{pi^e}{pi^e + e^{,textrm{ln}left(piright)times e}}+sqrt{dfrac{tfrac{pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e}{pi e}}{tfrac{pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + e pi e^{,ipi}}{pi e}}}$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Rather than just give you a fish, I'll teach you how to fish:



            $(phi - 1)phi = 1$



            $phi^2 - phi - 1 = 0$



            $phi = dfrac{1 + sqrt{5}}{2}$



            Now replace the integers there with a load of self-cancelling $pi$/$e$ terms which ultimately give you the values 1, 5, (2 or 4) to taste (-:



            Throw in some complex numbers too if you're feeling brave



            For example:



            $phi = dfrac{pi^e}{pi^e + e^{,textrm{ln}left(piright)times e}}+sqrt{dfrac{tfrac{pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e}{pi e}}{tfrac{pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + pi e + e pi e^{,ipi}}{pi e}}}$







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Jul 28 '13 at 22:56

























            answered Jul 28 '13 at 22:29









            Mark K CowanMark K Cowan

            543414




            543414








            • 11




              $begingroup$
              Care to explain the downvote?
              $endgroup$
              – Mark K Cowan
              Jul 28 '13 at 22:43






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              This is a joke just as vadim's answer.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:30






            • 20




              $begingroup$
              These "joke" solutions are perfectly correct. Easy math isn't wrong math. If you look at the original question, these answers are following all the rules.
              $endgroup$
              – Matt
              Jul 29 '13 at 17:10






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @Matt: Sure, they are correct and are very much amusing but they can be simplified down to $(1+sqrt 5)/2$ by even those who aren't that good in math. The best answer should be one that is both correct and isn't so intuitively understandable to the common man.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:15








            • 7




              $begingroup$
              @Nick, why should it be good if something is not understandable by the common man? Is maths about creating secrets that only mathematicians understand at the end? No. It's about giving precise solutions to problems that we find interesting. The simpler the solution, the better. If the solution looks like a joke, then you phrased the question unprecise.
              $endgroup$
              – Turion
              Aug 2 '13 at 11:50














            • 11




              $begingroup$
              Care to explain the downvote?
              $endgroup$
              – Mark K Cowan
              Jul 28 '13 at 22:43






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              This is a joke just as vadim's answer.
              $endgroup$
              – BPP
              Jul 29 '13 at 11:30






            • 20




              $begingroup$
              These "joke" solutions are perfectly correct. Easy math isn't wrong math. If you look at the original question, these answers are following all the rules.
              $endgroup$
              – Matt
              Jul 29 '13 at 17:10






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @Matt: Sure, they are correct and are very much amusing but they can be simplified down to $(1+sqrt 5)/2$ by even those who aren't that good in math. The best answer should be one that is both correct and isn't so intuitively understandable to the common man.
              $endgroup$
              – Nick
              Jul 30 '13 at 13:15








            • 7




              $begingroup$
              @Nick, why should it be good if something is not understandable by the common man? Is maths about creating secrets that only mathematicians understand at the end? No. It's about giving precise solutions to problems that we find interesting. The simpler the solution, the better. If the solution looks like a joke, then you phrased the question unprecise.
              $endgroup$
              – Turion
              Aug 2 '13 at 11:50








            11




            11




            $begingroup$
            Care to explain the downvote?
            $endgroup$
            – Mark K Cowan
            Jul 28 '13 at 22:43




            $begingroup$
            Care to explain the downvote?
            $endgroup$
            – Mark K Cowan
            Jul 28 '13 at 22:43




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            This is a joke just as vadim's answer.
            $endgroup$
            – BPP
            Jul 29 '13 at 11:30




            $begingroup$
            This is a joke just as vadim's answer.
            $endgroup$
            – BPP
            Jul 29 '13 at 11:30




            20




            20




            $begingroup$
            These "joke" solutions are perfectly correct. Easy math isn't wrong math. If you look at the original question, these answers are following all the rules.
            $endgroup$
            – Matt
            Jul 29 '13 at 17:10




            $begingroup$
            These "joke" solutions are perfectly correct. Easy math isn't wrong math. If you look at the original question, these answers are following all the rules.
            $endgroup$
            – Matt
            Jul 29 '13 at 17:10




            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            @Matt: Sure, they are correct and are very much amusing but they can be simplified down to $(1+sqrt 5)/2$ by even those who aren't that good in math. The best answer should be one that is both correct and isn't so intuitively understandable to the common man.
            $endgroup$
            – Nick
            Jul 30 '13 at 13:15






            $begingroup$
            @Matt: Sure, they are correct and are very much amusing but they can be simplified down to $(1+sqrt 5)/2$ by even those who aren't that good in math. The best answer should be one that is both correct and isn't so intuitively understandable to the common man.
            $endgroup$
            – Nick
            Jul 30 '13 at 13:15






            7




            7




            $begingroup$
            @Nick, why should it be good if something is not understandable by the common man? Is maths about creating secrets that only mathematicians understand at the end? No. It's about giving precise solutions to problems that we find interesting. The simpler the solution, the better. If the solution looks like a joke, then you phrased the question unprecise.
            $endgroup$
            – Turion
            Aug 2 '13 at 11:50




            $begingroup$
            @Nick, why should it be good if something is not understandable by the common man? Is maths about creating secrets that only mathematicians understand at the end? No. It's about giving precise solutions to problems that we find interesting. The simpler the solution, the better. If the solution looks like a joke, then you phrased the question unprecise.
            $endgroup$
            – Turion
            Aug 2 '13 at 11:50











            27












            $begingroup$

            $sqrt e approx 1.64872$ is not "very close" to $phi approx 1.61803$.



            Here is a very good approximation:
            $$
            phi approx frac{1967981,pi-314270,e}{3293083}
            $$



            The error is about $2 times 10^{-16}$.



            This relation was found using FindIntegerNullVector[N@{Pi,E,(1+Sqrt[5])/2}] with Mathematica (sadly, Wolfram Alpha does not understand this).






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              27












              $begingroup$

              $sqrt e approx 1.64872$ is not "very close" to $phi approx 1.61803$.



              Here is a very good approximation:
              $$
              phi approx frac{1967981,pi-314270,e}{3293083}
              $$



              The error is about $2 times 10^{-16}$.



              This relation was found using FindIntegerNullVector[N@{Pi,E,(1+Sqrt[5])/2}] with Mathematica (sadly, Wolfram Alpha does not understand this).






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                27












                27








                27





                $begingroup$

                $sqrt e approx 1.64872$ is not "very close" to $phi approx 1.61803$.



                Here is a very good approximation:
                $$
                phi approx frac{1967981,pi-314270,e}{3293083}
                $$



                The error is about $2 times 10^{-16}$.



                This relation was found using FindIntegerNullVector[N@{Pi,E,(1+Sqrt[5])/2}] with Mathematica (sadly, Wolfram Alpha does not understand this).






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                $sqrt e approx 1.64872$ is not "very close" to $phi approx 1.61803$.



                Here is a very good approximation:
                $$
                phi approx frac{1967981,pi-314270,e}{3293083}
                $$



                The error is about $2 times 10^{-16}$.



                This relation was found using FindIntegerNullVector[N@{Pi,E,(1+Sqrt[5])/2}] with Mathematica (sadly, Wolfram Alpha does not understand this).







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Jul 29 '13 at 14:42

























                answered Jul 29 '13 at 3:08









                lhflhf

                163k10168390




                163k10168390























                    21












                    $begingroup$

                    RIES can find solutions to approximation problems like this. Running



                    ries -NlLeE -s -l6 2.718281828459045235360287471


                    (which says "find $e$ without using logarithms, exponentials, or e itself" -- $pi$ and $phi$ are already in by default)



                    gives, among others,



                    $$phiapprox e-sqrt[3]{pi}$$
                    $$phiapproxfrac{5(1+pi)}{e}-6 qquad text{(to 7 decimal places)}$$



                    ries -SpfnrsqSCT+-*/^v -s -l6 2.718281828459045235360287471


                    (which says "find $e$ using only $pi$, $phi$, and the operators $+-cdot/sqrt[n]{ } text{^}sincostan$"... basically, banning numbers too) gives



                    $$phiapprox e/sqrt{pi-1/pi} qquad text{(2 places)}$$
                    $$phi^2approx(e-1/pi)^2-pi qquad text{(3 places)}$$



                    and many more. (If I was more careful I would have had it solve for $phi$ in the first place...)






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$









                    • 4




                      $begingroup$
                      Nice to know about ries!
                      $endgroup$
                      – lhf
                      Jul 31 '13 at 3:05










                    • $begingroup$
                      Neat!$left . right .$
                      $endgroup$
                      – Thomas
                      Aug 2 '13 at 11:57










                    • $begingroup$
                      On my machine, $e - sqrt[3]pi$ is about 1.254, which doesn't seem like a very good approximation.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Tanner Swett
                      Aug 2 '13 at 21:40










                    • $begingroup$
                      @TannerSwett: It's possible I did the conversion wrong as I typed it up. As you can see from the commands I actually asked RIES to find $e$ not $varphi$ and so I converted before posting.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Charles
                      Aug 3 '13 at 0:54
















                    21












                    $begingroup$

                    RIES can find solutions to approximation problems like this. Running



                    ries -NlLeE -s -l6 2.718281828459045235360287471


                    (which says "find $e$ without using logarithms, exponentials, or e itself" -- $pi$ and $phi$ are already in by default)



                    gives, among others,



                    $$phiapprox e-sqrt[3]{pi}$$
                    $$phiapproxfrac{5(1+pi)}{e}-6 qquad text{(to 7 decimal places)}$$



                    ries -SpfnrsqSCT+-*/^v -s -l6 2.718281828459045235360287471


                    (which says "find $e$ using only $pi$, $phi$, and the operators $+-cdot/sqrt[n]{ } text{^}sincostan$"... basically, banning numbers too) gives



                    $$phiapprox e/sqrt{pi-1/pi} qquad text{(2 places)}$$
                    $$phi^2approx(e-1/pi)^2-pi qquad text{(3 places)}$$



                    and many more. (If I was more careful I would have had it solve for $phi$ in the first place...)






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$









                    • 4




                      $begingroup$
                      Nice to know about ries!
                      $endgroup$
                      – lhf
                      Jul 31 '13 at 3:05










                    • $begingroup$
                      Neat!$left . right .$
                      $endgroup$
                      – Thomas
                      Aug 2 '13 at 11:57










                    • $begingroup$
                      On my machine, $e - sqrt[3]pi$ is about 1.254, which doesn't seem like a very good approximation.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Tanner Swett
                      Aug 2 '13 at 21:40










                    • $begingroup$
                      @TannerSwett: It's possible I did the conversion wrong as I typed it up. As you can see from the commands I actually asked RIES to find $e$ not $varphi$ and so I converted before posting.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Charles
                      Aug 3 '13 at 0:54














                    21












                    21








                    21





                    $begingroup$

                    RIES can find solutions to approximation problems like this. Running



                    ries -NlLeE -s -l6 2.718281828459045235360287471


                    (which says "find $e$ without using logarithms, exponentials, or e itself" -- $pi$ and $phi$ are already in by default)



                    gives, among others,



                    $$phiapprox e-sqrt[3]{pi}$$
                    $$phiapproxfrac{5(1+pi)}{e}-6 qquad text{(to 7 decimal places)}$$



                    ries -SpfnrsqSCT+-*/^v -s -l6 2.718281828459045235360287471


                    (which says "find $e$ using only $pi$, $phi$, and the operators $+-cdot/sqrt[n]{ } text{^}sincostan$"... basically, banning numbers too) gives



                    $$phiapprox e/sqrt{pi-1/pi} qquad text{(2 places)}$$
                    $$phi^2approx(e-1/pi)^2-pi qquad text{(3 places)}$$



                    and many more. (If I was more careful I would have had it solve for $phi$ in the first place...)






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    RIES can find solutions to approximation problems like this. Running



                    ries -NlLeE -s -l6 2.718281828459045235360287471


                    (which says "find $e$ without using logarithms, exponentials, or e itself" -- $pi$ and $phi$ are already in by default)



                    gives, among others,



                    $$phiapprox e-sqrt[3]{pi}$$
                    $$phiapproxfrac{5(1+pi)}{e}-6 qquad text{(to 7 decimal places)}$$



                    ries -SpfnrsqSCT+-*/^v -s -l6 2.718281828459045235360287471


                    (which says "find $e$ using only $pi$, $phi$, and the operators $+-cdot/sqrt[n]{ } text{^}sincostan$"... basically, banning numbers too) gives



                    $$phiapprox e/sqrt{pi-1/pi} qquad text{(2 places)}$$
                    $$phi^2approx(e-1/pi)^2-pi qquad text{(3 places)}$$



                    and many more. (If I was more careful I would have had it solve for $phi$ in the first place...)







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Aug 2 '13 at 21:44









                    Tanner Swett

                    4,2241639




                    4,2241639










                    answered Jul 30 '13 at 14:15









                    CharlesCharles

                    23.7k452114




                    23.7k452114








                    • 4




                      $begingroup$
                      Nice to know about ries!
                      $endgroup$
                      – lhf
                      Jul 31 '13 at 3:05










                    • $begingroup$
                      Neat!$left . right .$
                      $endgroup$
                      – Thomas
                      Aug 2 '13 at 11:57










                    • $begingroup$
                      On my machine, $e - sqrt[3]pi$ is about 1.254, which doesn't seem like a very good approximation.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Tanner Swett
                      Aug 2 '13 at 21:40










                    • $begingroup$
                      @TannerSwett: It's possible I did the conversion wrong as I typed it up. As you can see from the commands I actually asked RIES to find $e$ not $varphi$ and so I converted before posting.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Charles
                      Aug 3 '13 at 0:54














                    • 4




                      $begingroup$
                      Nice to know about ries!
                      $endgroup$
                      – lhf
                      Jul 31 '13 at 3:05










                    • $begingroup$
                      Neat!$left . right .$
                      $endgroup$
                      – Thomas
                      Aug 2 '13 at 11:57










                    • $begingroup$
                      On my machine, $e - sqrt[3]pi$ is about 1.254, which doesn't seem like a very good approximation.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Tanner Swett
                      Aug 2 '13 at 21:40










                    • $begingroup$
                      @TannerSwett: It's possible I did the conversion wrong as I typed it up. As you can see from the commands I actually asked RIES to find $e$ not $varphi$ and so I converted before posting.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Charles
                      Aug 3 '13 at 0:54








                    4




                    4




                    $begingroup$
                    Nice to know about ries!
                    $endgroup$
                    – lhf
                    Jul 31 '13 at 3:05




                    $begingroup$
                    Nice to know about ries!
                    $endgroup$
                    – lhf
                    Jul 31 '13 at 3:05












                    $begingroup$
                    Neat!$left . right .$
                    $endgroup$
                    – Thomas
                    Aug 2 '13 at 11:57




                    $begingroup$
                    Neat!$left . right .$
                    $endgroup$
                    – Thomas
                    Aug 2 '13 at 11:57












                    $begingroup$
                    On my machine, $e - sqrt[3]pi$ is about 1.254, which doesn't seem like a very good approximation.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Tanner Swett
                    Aug 2 '13 at 21:40




                    $begingroup$
                    On my machine, $e - sqrt[3]pi$ is about 1.254, which doesn't seem like a very good approximation.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Tanner Swett
                    Aug 2 '13 at 21:40












                    $begingroup$
                    @TannerSwett: It's possible I did the conversion wrong as I typed it up. As you can see from the commands I actually asked RIES to find $e$ not $varphi$ and so I converted before posting.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Charles
                    Aug 3 '13 at 0:54




                    $begingroup$
                    @TannerSwett: It's possible I did the conversion wrong as I typed it up. As you can see from the commands I actually asked RIES to find $e$ not $varphi$ and so I converted before posting.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Charles
                    Aug 3 '13 at 0:54











                    16












                    $begingroup$

                    An approximation: $$phi approx frac { 7pi }{ 5e } =1.618018$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$









                    • 3




                      $begingroup$
                      Good attempt. Surprisingly, this was one of the approximations I did initially.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Nick
                      Jul 30 '13 at 13:32










                    • $begingroup$
                      J. DePompeo (2004) wrote the equivalent $$frac{5phi e}{7pi}approx 1$$ (formula 34 in mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Jaume Oliver Lafont
                      Jan 26 '16 at 10:43
















                    16












                    $begingroup$

                    An approximation: $$phi approx frac { 7pi }{ 5e } =1.618018$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$









                    • 3




                      $begingroup$
                      Good attempt. Surprisingly, this was one of the approximations I did initially.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Nick
                      Jul 30 '13 at 13:32










                    • $begingroup$
                      J. DePompeo (2004) wrote the equivalent $$frac{5phi e}{7pi}approx 1$$ (formula 34 in mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Jaume Oliver Lafont
                      Jan 26 '16 at 10:43














                    16












                    16








                    16





                    $begingroup$

                    An approximation: $$phi approx frac { 7pi }{ 5e } =1.618018$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    An approximation: $$phi approx frac { 7pi }{ 5e } =1.618018$$







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Jul 29 '13 at 19:54









                    newzadnewzad

                    3,2251346




                    3,2251346








                    • 3




                      $begingroup$
                      Good attempt. Surprisingly, this was one of the approximations I did initially.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Nick
                      Jul 30 '13 at 13:32










                    • $begingroup$
                      J. DePompeo (2004) wrote the equivalent $$frac{5phi e}{7pi}approx 1$$ (formula 34 in mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Jaume Oliver Lafont
                      Jan 26 '16 at 10:43














                    • 3




                      $begingroup$
                      Good attempt. Surprisingly, this was one of the approximations I did initially.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Nick
                      Jul 30 '13 at 13:32










                    • $begingroup$
                      J. DePompeo (2004) wrote the equivalent $$frac{5phi e}{7pi}approx 1$$ (formula 34 in mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Jaume Oliver Lafont
                      Jan 26 '16 at 10:43








                    3




                    3




                    $begingroup$
                    Good attempt. Surprisingly, this was one of the approximations I did initially.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Nick
                    Jul 30 '13 at 13:32




                    $begingroup$
                    Good attempt. Surprisingly, this was one of the approximations I did initially.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Nick
                    Jul 30 '13 at 13:32












                    $begingroup$
                    J. DePompeo (2004) wrote the equivalent $$frac{5phi e}{7pi}approx 1$$ (formula 34 in mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Jaume Oliver Lafont
                    Jan 26 '16 at 10:43




                    $begingroup$
                    J. DePompeo (2004) wrote the equivalent $$frac{5phi e}{7pi}approx 1$$ (formula 34 in mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostInteger.html)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Jaume Oliver Lafont
                    Jan 26 '16 at 10:43











                    14












                    $begingroup$

                    Here is another suggestion:



                    $$phi=frac{pi}{pi+pi}+sqrt{frac{e+e+e+e+e}{e+e+e+e}}$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$









                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      yet another joke!!
                      $endgroup$
                      – BPP
                      Jul 29 '13 at 11:30






                    • 7




                      $begingroup$
                      The original are always better ;-)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Luc M
                      Jul 29 '13 at 15:42
















                    14












                    $begingroup$

                    Here is another suggestion:



                    $$phi=frac{pi}{pi+pi}+sqrt{frac{e+e+e+e+e}{e+e+e+e}}$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$









                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      yet another joke!!
                      $endgroup$
                      – BPP
                      Jul 29 '13 at 11:30






                    • 7




                      $begingroup$
                      The original are always better ;-)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Luc M
                      Jul 29 '13 at 15:42














                    14












                    14








                    14





                    $begingroup$

                    Here is another suggestion:



                    $$phi=frac{pi}{pi+pi}+sqrt{frac{e+e+e+e+e}{e+e+e+e}}$$






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    Here is another suggestion:



                    $$phi=frac{pi}{pi+pi}+sqrt{frac{e+e+e+e+e}{e+e+e+e}}$$







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Jul 28 '13 at 21:57









                    sam hocevarsam hocevar

                    55639




                    55639








                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      yet another joke!!
                      $endgroup$
                      – BPP
                      Jul 29 '13 at 11:30






                    • 7




                      $begingroup$
                      The original are always better ;-)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Luc M
                      Jul 29 '13 at 15:42














                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      yet another joke!!
                      $endgroup$
                      – BPP
                      Jul 29 '13 at 11:30






                    • 7




                      $begingroup$
                      The original are always better ;-)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Luc M
                      Jul 29 '13 at 15:42








                    2




                    2




                    $begingroup$
                    yet another joke!!
                    $endgroup$
                    – BPP
                    Jul 29 '13 at 11:30




                    $begingroup$
                    yet another joke!!
                    $endgroup$
                    – BPP
                    Jul 29 '13 at 11:30




                    7




                    7




                    $begingroup$
                    The original are always better ;-)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Luc M
                    Jul 29 '13 at 15:42




                    $begingroup$
                    The original are always better ;-)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Luc M
                    Jul 29 '13 at 15:42











                    12












                    $begingroup$

                    If you define the sequence $a_1 = a_2 = -e^{ipi}$, $a_k = a_{k-1} + a_{k-2}$, then $lim_{n rightarrow infty} frac {a_{n+1}}{a_n} = phi$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$









                    • 13




                      $begingroup$
                      You can even let $a_1 = e$ and $a_2 = pi$ if you'd like. The initial values don't much matter as long as they're positive.
                      $endgroup$
                      – A. Rex
                      Jul 29 '13 at 8:57






                    • 5




                      $begingroup$
                      ...which boils down to the Fibonacci sequence, for anyone who is curious as to how it works!
                      $endgroup$
                      – Mark K Cowan
                      Jul 31 '13 at 15:26
















                    12












                    $begingroup$

                    If you define the sequence $a_1 = a_2 = -e^{ipi}$, $a_k = a_{k-1} + a_{k-2}$, then $lim_{n rightarrow infty} frac {a_{n+1}}{a_n} = phi$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$









                    • 13




                      $begingroup$
                      You can even let $a_1 = e$ and $a_2 = pi$ if you'd like. The initial values don't much matter as long as they're positive.
                      $endgroup$
                      – A. Rex
                      Jul 29 '13 at 8:57






                    • 5




                      $begingroup$
                      ...which boils down to the Fibonacci sequence, for anyone who is curious as to how it works!
                      $endgroup$
                      – Mark K Cowan
                      Jul 31 '13 at 15:26














                    12












                    12








                    12





                    $begingroup$

                    If you define the sequence $a_1 = a_2 = -e^{ipi}$, $a_k = a_{k-1} + a_{k-2}$, then $lim_{n rightarrow infty} frac {a_{n+1}}{a_n} = phi$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    If you define the sequence $a_1 = a_2 = -e^{ipi}$, $a_k = a_{k-1} + a_{k-2}$, then $lim_{n rightarrow infty} frac {a_{n+1}}{a_n} = phi$.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Jul 29 '13 at 3:45









                    DanDan

                    4,50511517




                    4,50511517








                    • 13




                      $begingroup$
                      You can even let $a_1 = e$ and $a_2 = pi$ if you'd like. The initial values don't much matter as long as they're positive.
                      $endgroup$
                      – A. Rex
                      Jul 29 '13 at 8:57






                    • 5




                      $begingroup$
                      ...which boils down to the Fibonacci sequence, for anyone who is curious as to how it works!
                      $endgroup$
                      – Mark K Cowan
                      Jul 31 '13 at 15:26














                    • 13




                      $begingroup$
                      You can even let $a_1 = e$ and $a_2 = pi$ if you'd like. The initial values don't much matter as long as they're positive.
                      $endgroup$
                      – A. Rex
                      Jul 29 '13 at 8:57






                    • 5




                      $begingroup$
                      ...which boils down to the Fibonacci sequence, for anyone who is curious as to how it works!
                      $endgroup$
                      – Mark K Cowan
                      Jul 31 '13 at 15:26








                    13




                    13




                    $begingroup$
                    You can even let $a_1 = e$ and $a_2 = pi$ if you'd like. The initial values don't much matter as long as they're positive.
                    $endgroup$
                    – A. Rex
                    Jul 29 '13 at 8:57




                    $begingroup$
                    You can even let $a_1 = e$ and $a_2 = pi$ if you'd like. The initial values don't much matter as long as they're positive.
                    $endgroup$
                    – A. Rex
                    Jul 29 '13 at 8:57




                    5




                    5




                    $begingroup$
                    ...which boils down to the Fibonacci sequence, for anyone who is curious as to how it works!
                    $endgroup$
                    – Mark K Cowan
                    Jul 31 '13 at 15:26




                    $begingroup$
                    ...which boils down to the Fibonacci sequence, for anyone who is curious as to how it works!
                    $endgroup$
                    – Mark K Cowan
                    Jul 31 '13 at 15:26











                    11












                    $begingroup$

                    It seems all the answers so far approaching this from a theoretical perspective are approaching this in terms of exact answers, but we can say a lot about when good approximations are possible too. Of course, some answers have already provided silly ways to do this exactly, so approximations may seem unnecessary, but it provides a nice avenue for some basic transcendental number theory.



                    It is an unsolved problem, which virtually everyone believes to be true, that $frac e pi$ is irrational. Let's assume for the moment that this is true. Then it's a trivial corollary of a well-known theorem that if $alpha$ is an irrational number, and $beta$ is any real number, there exist arbitrarily good approximations $p + q alpha approx beta$ with $p,q$ integers. That means, taking $alpha = frac e pi$ and $beta = frac phi pi$, we can find integers $p,q$ such that $p e + q pi$ approximates $phi$ to any tolerance you desire.



                    One such approximation could be $357 pi - 412 e = 1.61646... approx 1.61803... = phi$, which is accurate to one part in 1000. One can do better, but this at least demonstrates the principle. If the 357 and 412 bother you, you may imagine that I've written a sum with 729 terms on the left hand side instead, 357 of which are $pi$ and 412 of which are $-e$.



                    So what if, against all bets, $frac e pi$ is rational? Then the opposite is true. There is a single best approximation to $phi$ of the form $p e + q pi$, which is not exact, and there are infinitely many choices of $p$ and $q$ which yield the same approximation. This is because, in that case every number of the form $p e + q pi$ is a rational multiple of $e$ with denominator dividing $d$ the denominator of $frac e pi$ when written as an integer fraction in lowest terms. Of course, none of these can be exact, since they're all either 0 or transcendental, while $phi$ is algebraic, and since the set of all such numbers is discrete (being just $frac{e}{d}mathbb Z$ where $d$ is the denominator mentioned above), $phi$ is not in its closure. That is to say, the irrationality of $frac e pi$ is equivalent to the existence of arbitrarily good approximations to $phi$ of the form $p e + q pi$ for integers $p$ and $q$. Of course, the current lower bounds on $d$ are likely to be extremely large since we know plenty of digits of both $e$ and $pi$ and haven't yet found any such rational number with value $frac e pi$, so there are going to be very good approximations for all practical purposes, but eventually there has to be a single best one, in exactly the same way that there's a single best integer approximation to $phi$ (namely 2).



                    Luckily, even in this case we can still construct arbitrarily good approximations to $phi$ based on $e$ and $pi$; just not in the same way. Of course, for some $n$, it must be true that $sqrt[n] frac{e}{pi}$ is irrational (this is true for any real number other than 0 and 1, and $frac e pi$ is clearly neither). We can play exactly the same game as we did before to get arbitrarily good approximations of the form $p sqrt[n] e + q sqrt[n] pi$ to $phi$ with $p$ and $q$ integers. If the appearance of this $n$ bothers you, we can even take $n$ to be a power of 2 so that $sqrt[n] {}$ can be written as a repeated composition of $sqrt {}$, i.e. $sqrt[8]{x}=sqrt {sqrt {sqrt{x}}}$.



                    Note that in all cases above, it's (as far as I know) unknown whether the forms given can exactly represent $phi$, though all bets are to the negative. Certainly there are no known cases in which it does represent $phi$ exactly, since that would give a proof that $e$ and $pi$ are not algebraically independent (a major unsolved problem). In principle, there could be cases where it's definitely known that the form does not represent $phi$ exactly, but really there's just about nothing about problems like this so it would surprise me if there are any cases known.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$


















                      11












                      $begingroup$

                      It seems all the answers so far approaching this from a theoretical perspective are approaching this in terms of exact answers, but we can say a lot about when good approximations are possible too. Of course, some answers have already provided silly ways to do this exactly, so approximations may seem unnecessary, but it provides a nice avenue for some basic transcendental number theory.



                      It is an unsolved problem, which virtually everyone believes to be true, that $frac e pi$ is irrational. Let's assume for the moment that this is true. Then it's a trivial corollary of a well-known theorem that if $alpha$ is an irrational number, and $beta$ is any real number, there exist arbitrarily good approximations $p + q alpha approx beta$ with $p,q$ integers. That means, taking $alpha = frac e pi$ and $beta = frac phi pi$, we can find integers $p,q$ such that $p e + q pi$ approximates $phi$ to any tolerance you desire.



                      One such approximation could be $357 pi - 412 e = 1.61646... approx 1.61803... = phi$, which is accurate to one part in 1000. One can do better, but this at least demonstrates the principle. If the 357 and 412 bother you, you may imagine that I've written a sum with 729 terms on the left hand side instead, 357 of which are $pi$ and 412 of which are $-e$.



                      So what if, against all bets, $frac e pi$ is rational? Then the opposite is true. There is a single best approximation to $phi$ of the form $p e + q pi$, which is not exact, and there are infinitely many choices of $p$ and $q$ which yield the same approximation. This is because, in that case every number of the form $p e + q pi$ is a rational multiple of $e$ with denominator dividing $d$ the denominator of $frac e pi$ when written as an integer fraction in lowest terms. Of course, none of these can be exact, since they're all either 0 or transcendental, while $phi$ is algebraic, and since the set of all such numbers is discrete (being just $frac{e}{d}mathbb Z$ where $d$ is the denominator mentioned above), $phi$ is not in its closure. That is to say, the irrationality of $frac e pi$ is equivalent to the existence of arbitrarily good approximations to $phi$ of the form $p e + q pi$ for integers $p$ and $q$. Of course, the current lower bounds on $d$ are likely to be extremely large since we know plenty of digits of both $e$ and $pi$ and haven't yet found any such rational number with value $frac e pi$, so there are going to be very good approximations for all practical purposes, but eventually there has to be a single best one, in exactly the same way that there's a single best integer approximation to $phi$ (namely 2).



                      Luckily, even in this case we can still construct arbitrarily good approximations to $phi$ based on $e$ and $pi$; just not in the same way. Of course, for some $n$, it must be true that $sqrt[n] frac{e}{pi}$ is irrational (this is true for any real number other than 0 and 1, and $frac e pi$ is clearly neither). We can play exactly the same game as we did before to get arbitrarily good approximations of the form $p sqrt[n] e + q sqrt[n] pi$ to $phi$ with $p$ and $q$ integers. If the appearance of this $n$ bothers you, we can even take $n$ to be a power of 2 so that $sqrt[n] {}$ can be written as a repeated composition of $sqrt {}$, i.e. $sqrt[8]{x}=sqrt {sqrt {sqrt{x}}}$.



                      Note that in all cases above, it's (as far as I know) unknown whether the forms given can exactly represent $phi$, though all bets are to the negative. Certainly there are no known cases in which it does represent $phi$ exactly, since that would give a proof that $e$ and $pi$ are not algebraically independent (a major unsolved problem). In principle, there could be cases where it's definitely known that the form does not represent $phi$ exactly, but really there's just about nothing about problems like this so it would surprise me if there are any cases known.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$
















                        11












                        11








                        11





                        $begingroup$

                        It seems all the answers so far approaching this from a theoretical perspective are approaching this in terms of exact answers, but we can say a lot about when good approximations are possible too. Of course, some answers have already provided silly ways to do this exactly, so approximations may seem unnecessary, but it provides a nice avenue for some basic transcendental number theory.



                        It is an unsolved problem, which virtually everyone believes to be true, that $frac e pi$ is irrational. Let's assume for the moment that this is true. Then it's a trivial corollary of a well-known theorem that if $alpha$ is an irrational number, and $beta$ is any real number, there exist arbitrarily good approximations $p + q alpha approx beta$ with $p,q$ integers. That means, taking $alpha = frac e pi$ and $beta = frac phi pi$, we can find integers $p,q$ such that $p e + q pi$ approximates $phi$ to any tolerance you desire.



                        One such approximation could be $357 pi - 412 e = 1.61646... approx 1.61803... = phi$, which is accurate to one part in 1000. One can do better, but this at least demonstrates the principle. If the 357 and 412 bother you, you may imagine that I've written a sum with 729 terms on the left hand side instead, 357 of which are $pi$ and 412 of which are $-e$.



                        So what if, against all bets, $frac e pi$ is rational? Then the opposite is true. There is a single best approximation to $phi$ of the form $p e + q pi$, which is not exact, and there are infinitely many choices of $p$ and $q$ which yield the same approximation. This is because, in that case every number of the form $p e + q pi$ is a rational multiple of $e$ with denominator dividing $d$ the denominator of $frac e pi$ when written as an integer fraction in lowest terms. Of course, none of these can be exact, since they're all either 0 or transcendental, while $phi$ is algebraic, and since the set of all such numbers is discrete (being just $frac{e}{d}mathbb Z$ where $d$ is the denominator mentioned above), $phi$ is not in its closure. That is to say, the irrationality of $frac e pi$ is equivalent to the existence of arbitrarily good approximations to $phi$ of the form $p e + q pi$ for integers $p$ and $q$. Of course, the current lower bounds on $d$ are likely to be extremely large since we know plenty of digits of both $e$ and $pi$ and haven't yet found any such rational number with value $frac e pi$, so there are going to be very good approximations for all practical purposes, but eventually there has to be a single best one, in exactly the same way that there's a single best integer approximation to $phi$ (namely 2).



                        Luckily, even in this case we can still construct arbitrarily good approximations to $phi$ based on $e$ and $pi$; just not in the same way. Of course, for some $n$, it must be true that $sqrt[n] frac{e}{pi}$ is irrational (this is true for any real number other than 0 and 1, and $frac e pi$ is clearly neither). We can play exactly the same game as we did before to get arbitrarily good approximations of the form $p sqrt[n] e + q sqrt[n] pi$ to $phi$ with $p$ and $q$ integers. If the appearance of this $n$ bothers you, we can even take $n$ to be a power of 2 so that $sqrt[n] {}$ can be written as a repeated composition of $sqrt {}$, i.e. $sqrt[8]{x}=sqrt {sqrt {sqrt{x}}}$.



                        Note that in all cases above, it's (as far as I know) unknown whether the forms given can exactly represent $phi$, though all bets are to the negative. Certainly there are no known cases in which it does represent $phi$ exactly, since that would give a proof that $e$ and $pi$ are not algebraically independent (a major unsolved problem). In principle, there could be cases where it's definitely known that the form does not represent $phi$ exactly, but really there's just about nothing about problems like this so it would surprise me if there are any cases known.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$



                        It seems all the answers so far approaching this from a theoretical perspective are approaching this in terms of exact answers, but we can say a lot about when good approximations are possible too. Of course, some answers have already provided silly ways to do this exactly, so approximations may seem unnecessary, but it provides a nice avenue for some basic transcendental number theory.



                        It is an unsolved problem, which virtually everyone believes to be true, that $frac e pi$ is irrational. Let's assume for the moment that this is true. Then it's a trivial corollary of a well-known theorem that if $alpha$ is an irrational number, and $beta$ is any real number, there exist arbitrarily good approximations $p + q alpha approx beta$ with $p,q$ integers. That means, taking $alpha = frac e pi$ and $beta = frac phi pi$, we can find integers $p,q$ such that $p e + q pi$ approximates $phi$ to any tolerance you desire.



                        One such approximation could be $357 pi - 412 e = 1.61646... approx 1.61803... = phi$, which is accurate to one part in 1000. One can do better, but this at least demonstrates the principle. If the 357 and 412 bother you, you may imagine that I've written a sum with 729 terms on the left hand side instead, 357 of which are $pi$ and 412 of which are $-e$.



                        So what if, against all bets, $frac e pi$ is rational? Then the opposite is true. There is a single best approximation to $phi$ of the form $p e + q pi$, which is not exact, and there are infinitely many choices of $p$ and $q$ which yield the same approximation. This is because, in that case every number of the form $p e + q pi$ is a rational multiple of $e$ with denominator dividing $d$ the denominator of $frac e pi$ when written as an integer fraction in lowest terms. Of course, none of these can be exact, since they're all either 0 or transcendental, while $phi$ is algebraic, and since the set of all such numbers is discrete (being just $frac{e}{d}mathbb Z$ where $d$ is the denominator mentioned above), $phi$ is not in its closure. That is to say, the irrationality of $frac e pi$ is equivalent to the existence of arbitrarily good approximations to $phi$ of the form $p e + q pi$ for integers $p$ and $q$. Of course, the current lower bounds on $d$ are likely to be extremely large since we know plenty of digits of both $e$ and $pi$ and haven't yet found any such rational number with value $frac e pi$, so there are going to be very good approximations for all practical purposes, but eventually there has to be a single best one, in exactly the same way that there's a single best integer approximation to $phi$ (namely 2).



                        Luckily, even in this case we can still construct arbitrarily good approximations to $phi$ based on $e$ and $pi$; just not in the same way. Of course, for some $n$, it must be true that $sqrt[n] frac{e}{pi}$ is irrational (this is true for any real number other than 0 and 1, and $frac e pi$ is clearly neither). We can play exactly the same game as we did before to get arbitrarily good approximations of the form $p sqrt[n] e + q sqrt[n] pi$ to $phi$ with $p$ and $q$ integers. If the appearance of this $n$ bothers you, we can even take $n$ to be a power of 2 so that $sqrt[n] {}$ can be written as a repeated composition of $sqrt {}$, i.e. $sqrt[8]{x}=sqrt {sqrt {sqrt{x}}}$.



                        Note that in all cases above, it's (as far as I know) unknown whether the forms given can exactly represent $phi$, though all bets are to the negative. Certainly there are no known cases in which it does represent $phi$ exactly, since that would give a proof that $e$ and $pi$ are not algebraically independent (a major unsolved problem). In principle, there could be cases where it's definitely known that the form does not represent $phi$ exactly, but really there's just about nothing about problems like this so it would surprise me if there are any cases known.







                        share|cite|improve this answer












                        share|cite|improve this answer



                        share|cite|improve this answer










                        answered Jul 31 '13 at 2:21









                        user88377user88377

                        359110




                        359110























                            5












                            $begingroup$

                            form this $phi = 2cos(frac{pi }{5})$ and euler formula $e^{ix} = cos(x) + isin(x)$ you can conclude this one $phi= 2e^{ifrac{pi}{5}}-2isin(frac{pi}{5})$. [check]






                            share|cite|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$









                            • 1




                              $begingroup$
                              This is a good approach! Check out my answer for how to turn this into an especially clean expression.
                              $endgroup$
                              – A. Rex
                              Jul 30 '13 at 0:16
















                            5












                            $begingroup$

                            form this $phi = 2cos(frac{pi }{5})$ and euler formula $e^{ix} = cos(x) + isin(x)$ you can conclude this one $phi= 2e^{ifrac{pi}{5}}-2isin(frac{pi}{5})$. [check]






                            share|cite|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$









                            • 1




                              $begingroup$
                              This is a good approach! Check out my answer for how to turn this into an especially clean expression.
                              $endgroup$
                              – A. Rex
                              Jul 30 '13 at 0:16














                            5












                            5








                            5





                            $begingroup$

                            form this $phi = 2cos(frac{pi }{5})$ and euler formula $e^{ix} = cos(x) + isin(x)$ you can conclude this one $phi= 2e^{ifrac{pi}{5}}-2isin(frac{pi}{5})$. [check]






                            share|cite|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$



                            form this $phi = 2cos(frac{pi }{5})$ and euler formula $e^{ix} = cos(x) + isin(x)$ you can conclude this one $phi= 2e^{ifrac{pi}{5}}-2isin(frac{pi}{5})$. [check]







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Sep 5 '15 at 19:46









                            wythagoras

                            21.6k444104




                            21.6k444104










                            answered Jul 29 '13 at 11:31









                            SomeOneSomeOne

                            667514




                            667514








                            • 1




                              $begingroup$
                              This is a good approach! Check out my answer for how to turn this into an especially clean expression.
                              $endgroup$
                              – A. Rex
                              Jul 30 '13 at 0:16














                            • 1




                              $begingroup$
                              This is a good approach! Check out my answer for how to turn this into an especially clean expression.
                              $endgroup$
                              – A. Rex
                              Jul 30 '13 at 0:16








                            1




                            1




                            $begingroup$
                            This is a good approach! Check out my answer for how to turn this into an especially clean expression.
                            $endgroup$
                            – A. Rex
                            Jul 30 '13 at 0:16




                            $begingroup$
                            This is a good approach! Check out my answer for how to turn this into an especially clean expression.
                            $endgroup$
                            – A. Rex
                            Jul 30 '13 at 0:16











                            3












                            $begingroup$

                            Using the 5 constants of Euler's identity $ e^{ipi} + 1 = 0 $ it is possible to include $ varphi $ into an equation to give an identity containing six constants as follows:
                            $$ e^{frac{ipi}{1+varphi}} + e^{-frac{ipi}{1+varphi}} + e^{frac{ipi}{varphi}} + e^{-frac{ipi}{varphi}} = 0 $$
                            See article and
                            OEIS Sequence A193537






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$


















                              3












                              $begingroup$

                              Using the 5 constants of Euler's identity $ e^{ipi} + 1 = 0 $ it is possible to include $ varphi $ into an equation to give an identity containing six constants as follows:
                              $$ e^{frac{ipi}{1+varphi}} + e^{-frac{ipi}{1+varphi}} + e^{frac{ipi}{varphi}} + e^{-frac{ipi}{varphi}} = 0 $$
                              See article and
                              OEIS Sequence A193537






                              share|cite|improve this answer









                              $endgroup$
















                                3












                                3








                                3





                                $begingroup$

                                Using the 5 constants of Euler's identity $ e^{ipi} + 1 = 0 $ it is possible to include $ varphi $ into an equation to give an identity containing six constants as follows:
                                $$ e^{frac{ipi}{1+varphi}} + e^{-frac{ipi}{1+varphi}} + e^{frac{ipi}{varphi}} + e^{-frac{ipi}{varphi}} = 0 $$
                                See article and
                                OEIS Sequence A193537






                                share|cite|improve this answer









                                $endgroup$



                                Using the 5 constants of Euler's identity $ e^{ipi} + 1 = 0 $ it is possible to include $ varphi $ into an equation to give an identity containing six constants as follows:
                                $$ e^{frac{ipi}{1+varphi}} + e^{-frac{ipi}{1+varphi}} + e^{frac{ipi}{varphi}} + e^{-frac{ipi}{varphi}} = 0 $$
                                See article and
                                OEIS Sequence A193537







                                share|cite|improve this answer












                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer










                                answered Feb 6 '16 at 9:10









                                Frank M JacksonFrank M Jackson

                                556




                                556























                                    2












                                    $begingroup$

                                    An approximation with an accuracy similar to that of $piapprox3$ (error<5%) is given by the sixth root of Gelfond's constant,



                                    $$e^{frac{pi}{6}}approx phi$$



                                    with rational term series



                                    $$e^{frac{pi}{6}}=sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{left(e^{frac{pi}{2}} - (-1)^k e^{-frac{pi}{2}}right)Gammaleft(frac{k+i}{2}right)Gammaleft(frac{k-i}{2}right)}{4pi k!}$$



                                    Rational series representation of $e^pi$






                                    share|cite|improve this answer











                                    $endgroup$


















                                      2












                                      $begingroup$

                                      An approximation with an accuracy similar to that of $piapprox3$ (error<5%) is given by the sixth root of Gelfond's constant,



                                      $$e^{frac{pi}{6}}approx phi$$



                                      with rational term series



                                      $$e^{frac{pi}{6}}=sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{left(e^{frac{pi}{2}} - (-1)^k e^{-frac{pi}{2}}right)Gammaleft(frac{k+i}{2}right)Gammaleft(frac{k-i}{2}right)}{4pi k!}$$



                                      Rational series representation of $e^pi$






                                      share|cite|improve this answer











                                      $endgroup$
















                                        2












                                        2








                                        2





                                        $begingroup$

                                        An approximation with an accuracy similar to that of $piapprox3$ (error<5%) is given by the sixth root of Gelfond's constant,



                                        $$e^{frac{pi}{6}}approx phi$$



                                        with rational term series



                                        $$e^{frac{pi}{6}}=sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{left(e^{frac{pi}{2}} - (-1)^k e^{-frac{pi}{2}}right)Gammaleft(frac{k+i}{2}right)Gammaleft(frac{k-i}{2}right)}{4pi k!}$$



                                        Rational series representation of $e^pi$






                                        share|cite|improve this answer











                                        $endgroup$



                                        An approximation with an accuracy similar to that of $piapprox3$ (error<5%) is given by the sixth root of Gelfond's constant,



                                        $$e^{frac{pi}{6}}approx phi$$



                                        with rational term series



                                        $$e^{frac{pi}{6}}=sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{left(e^{frac{pi}{2}} - (-1)^k e^{-frac{pi}{2}}right)Gammaleft(frac{k+i}{2}right)Gammaleft(frac{k-i}{2}right)}{4pi k!}$$



                                        Rational series representation of $e^pi$







                                        share|cite|improve this answer














                                        share|cite|improve this answer



                                        share|cite|improve this answer








                                        edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21









                                        Community

                                        1




                                        1










                                        answered Jan 26 '16 at 9:57









                                        Jaume Oliver LafontJaume Oliver Lafont

                                        3,09411033




                                        3,09411033























                                            2












                                            $begingroup$

                                            Here's one I've found: $$phiapproxfrac epileft(frac1{sqrt3}+frac1{sqrt{pi^{sqrt{163}-sqrtpi}}}right)+sqrt{frac{e^{sqrt[3]{pi}+1}}{3pi}}=1.618131648cdots$$



                                            And here's some more interesting near-integer identities...






                                            share|cite|improve this answer









                                            $endgroup$













                                            • $begingroup$
                                              This is similar to my initial aproach and those coincidences in the link are nice. What makes 163 special?
                                              $endgroup$
                                              – Nick
                                              Aug 1 '18 at 19:32










                                            • $begingroup$
                                              It's the largest Heegner number, and $exp(pisqrt{163})$ is very close to an integer. This has more 'coincidences'.
                                              $endgroup$
                                              – TheSimpliFire
                                              Aug 2 '18 at 7:22


















                                            2












                                            $begingroup$

                                            Here's one I've found: $$phiapproxfrac epileft(frac1{sqrt3}+frac1{sqrt{pi^{sqrt{163}-sqrtpi}}}right)+sqrt{frac{e^{sqrt[3]{pi}+1}}{3pi}}=1.618131648cdots$$



                                            And here's some more interesting near-integer identities...






                                            share|cite|improve this answer









                                            $endgroup$













                                            • $begingroup$
                                              This is similar to my initial aproach and those coincidences in the link are nice. What makes 163 special?
                                              $endgroup$
                                              – Nick
                                              Aug 1 '18 at 19:32










                                            • $begingroup$
                                              It's the largest Heegner number, and $exp(pisqrt{163})$ is very close to an integer. This has more 'coincidences'.
                                              $endgroup$
                                              – TheSimpliFire
                                              Aug 2 '18 at 7:22
















                                            2












                                            2








                                            2





                                            $begingroup$

                                            Here's one I've found: $$phiapproxfrac epileft(frac1{sqrt3}+frac1{sqrt{pi^{sqrt{163}-sqrtpi}}}right)+sqrt{frac{e^{sqrt[3]{pi}+1}}{3pi}}=1.618131648cdots$$



                                            And here's some more interesting near-integer identities...






                                            share|cite|improve this answer









                                            $endgroup$



                                            Here's one I've found: $$phiapproxfrac epileft(frac1{sqrt3}+frac1{sqrt{pi^{sqrt{163}-sqrtpi}}}right)+sqrt{frac{e^{sqrt[3]{pi}+1}}{3pi}}=1.618131648cdots$$



                                            And here's some more interesting near-integer identities...







                                            share|cite|improve this answer












                                            share|cite|improve this answer



                                            share|cite|improve this answer










                                            answered Jul 31 '18 at 19:28









                                            TheSimpliFireTheSimpliFire

                                            12.6k62360




                                            12.6k62360












                                            • $begingroup$
                                              This is similar to my initial aproach and those coincidences in the link are nice. What makes 163 special?
                                              $endgroup$
                                              – Nick
                                              Aug 1 '18 at 19:32










                                            • $begingroup$
                                              It's the largest Heegner number, and $exp(pisqrt{163})$ is very close to an integer. This has more 'coincidences'.
                                              $endgroup$
                                              – TheSimpliFire
                                              Aug 2 '18 at 7:22




















                                            • $begingroup$
                                              This is similar to my initial aproach and those coincidences in the link are nice. What makes 163 special?
                                              $endgroup$
                                              – Nick
                                              Aug 1 '18 at 19:32










                                            • $begingroup$
                                              It's the largest Heegner number, and $exp(pisqrt{163})$ is very close to an integer. This has more 'coincidences'.
                                              $endgroup$
                                              – TheSimpliFire
                                              Aug 2 '18 at 7:22


















                                            $begingroup$
                                            This is similar to my initial aproach and those coincidences in the link are nice. What makes 163 special?
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Nick
                                            Aug 1 '18 at 19:32




                                            $begingroup$
                                            This is similar to my initial aproach and those coincidences in the link are nice. What makes 163 special?
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Nick
                                            Aug 1 '18 at 19:32












                                            $begingroup$
                                            It's the largest Heegner number, and $exp(pisqrt{163})$ is very close to an integer. This has more 'coincidences'.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – TheSimpliFire
                                            Aug 2 '18 at 7:22






                                            $begingroup$
                                            It's the largest Heegner number, and $exp(pisqrt{163})$ is very close to an integer. This has more 'coincidences'.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – TheSimpliFire
                                            Aug 2 '18 at 7:22













                                            2












                                            $begingroup$

                                            If we are allowing non-closed-form expressions then we have the following infinte series representations:





                                            From Cloitre, Borwein and Chamberland a BPP formula in a $verb/non-integer base/$



                                            $$pi^2=50sum_{k=0}^infty{1 above 1.5pt phi^{5k}}Bigg({phi^{-2}above 1.5pt (5k+1)^2 } -{phi^{-1}above 1.5pt (5k+2)^2 }- {phi^{-2}above 1.5pt (5k+3)^2 }+ {phi^{-5}above 1.5pt (5k+4)^2 } +{2phi^{-5}above 1.5pt (5k+5)^2 } Bigg)$$





                                            There is also the following:



                                            $$phi=2sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^{n}{left(frac{pi}{5}right)^{2n} above 1.5pt (2n)!}$$



                                            ; which is play on a well known infinite series for the square root of $2.$ In particular just consider numbers written as $2cos(frac{pi}{k})$ and take $k=5.$






                                            share|cite|improve this answer











                                            $endgroup$


















                                              2












                                              $begingroup$

                                              If we are allowing non-closed-form expressions then we have the following infinte series representations:





                                              From Cloitre, Borwein and Chamberland a BPP formula in a $verb/non-integer base/$



                                              $$pi^2=50sum_{k=0}^infty{1 above 1.5pt phi^{5k}}Bigg({phi^{-2}above 1.5pt (5k+1)^2 } -{phi^{-1}above 1.5pt (5k+2)^2 }- {phi^{-2}above 1.5pt (5k+3)^2 }+ {phi^{-5}above 1.5pt (5k+4)^2 } +{2phi^{-5}above 1.5pt (5k+5)^2 } Bigg)$$





                                              There is also the following:



                                              $$phi=2sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^{n}{left(frac{pi}{5}right)^{2n} above 1.5pt (2n)!}$$



                                              ; which is play on a well known infinite series for the square root of $2.$ In particular just consider numbers written as $2cos(frac{pi}{k})$ and take $k=5.$






                                              share|cite|improve this answer











                                              $endgroup$
















                                                2












                                                2








                                                2





                                                $begingroup$

                                                If we are allowing non-closed-form expressions then we have the following infinte series representations:





                                                From Cloitre, Borwein and Chamberland a BPP formula in a $verb/non-integer base/$



                                                $$pi^2=50sum_{k=0}^infty{1 above 1.5pt phi^{5k}}Bigg({phi^{-2}above 1.5pt (5k+1)^2 } -{phi^{-1}above 1.5pt (5k+2)^2 }- {phi^{-2}above 1.5pt (5k+3)^2 }+ {phi^{-5}above 1.5pt (5k+4)^2 } +{2phi^{-5}above 1.5pt (5k+5)^2 } Bigg)$$





                                                There is also the following:



                                                $$phi=2sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^{n}{left(frac{pi}{5}right)^{2n} above 1.5pt (2n)!}$$



                                                ; which is play on a well known infinite series for the square root of $2.$ In particular just consider numbers written as $2cos(frac{pi}{k})$ and take $k=5.$






                                                share|cite|improve this answer











                                                $endgroup$



                                                If we are allowing non-closed-form expressions then we have the following infinte series representations:





                                                From Cloitre, Borwein and Chamberland a BPP formula in a $verb/non-integer base/$



                                                $$pi^2=50sum_{k=0}^infty{1 above 1.5pt phi^{5k}}Bigg({phi^{-2}above 1.5pt (5k+1)^2 } -{phi^{-1}above 1.5pt (5k+2)^2 }- {phi^{-2}above 1.5pt (5k+3)^2 }+ {phi^{-5}above 1.5pt (5k+4)^2 } +{2phi^{-5}above 1.5pt (5k+5)^2 } Bigg)$$





                                                There is also the following:



                                                $$phi=2sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^{n}{left(frac{pi}{5}right)^{2n} above 1.5pt (2n)!}$$



                                                ; which is play on a well known infinite series for the square root of $2.$ In particular just consider numbers written as $2cos(frac{pi}{k})$ and take $k=5.$







                                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                                edited Dec 30 '18 at 2:40

























                                                answered Oct 31 '17 at 12:30









                                                Antonio Hernandez MaquivarAntonio Hernandez Maquivar

                                                1,421622




                                                1,421622

















                                                    protected by Community May 19 '17 at 17:52



                                                    Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                                    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                                    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                                    Popular posts from this blog

                                                    Human spaceflight

                                                    Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

                                                    File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg