Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.172 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.69; '*S*': 0.03; 'limit,': 0.07; 'output': 0.10; 'limit.': 0.16; 'url:pastebin': 0.16; 'thanks,': 0.18; '<>.': 0.19; 'figure': 0.21; 'checked': 0.24; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.29; "what's": 0.33; "can't": 0.33; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.33; "i've": 0.34; 'but': 0.37; 'not,': 0.38; 'received:google.com': 0.38; 'should': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:74.125': 0.39; "i'd": 0.40; 'series': 0.65; 'limit': 0.66; 'saw': 0.69; 'subject:The': 0.72; 'dick': 0.84; 'subject:Series': 0.91; '150': 0.93 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=biTUrF7CK/zDVt5vXmgp9vEQV+TV8J5uDmSaiLbVS78=; b=Hcl/iYrT00Pzt9Xa709KAjh+wMnhIYygCaYj9nNrJo+f/avkONQMVkGTH+l/lSPx92 pbEI/YLPUm/sliTZhkH1Vmpys0nWTGOa3jtLSZILWJz4ml3GLR0IJ+ydlJd3J6CIGlip q9H1LWAj9aesZ6oe9AnIBjpnE5Ecpb5UOR9Es= MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Richard D. Moores" Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:57:34 -0700 Subject: Puzzled about the output of my demo of a proof of The Euler Series To: python-list@python.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1313021168 news.xs4all.nl 23977 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:51109 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:11158 I saw an interesting proof of the limit of The Euler Series on math.stackexchange.com at . Scroll down to Hans Lundmark's post. I thought I'd try to see this "pinching down" on the limit of pi**2/6. See my attempt, and output for n = 150 at . What puzzles me is that upper_bound_partial_sum (lines 39 and 60) is always smaller than the limit. It should be greater than the limit, right? If not, no pinching between upper_bound_partial_sum and lower_bound_partial_sum. I've checked and double-checked the computation, but can't figure out what's wrong. Thanks, Dick Moores