03/04/2008, 09:29 AM
Well, his graph shows them. That is what I understood. as asymptotes going to -x , while asymptoes of even negative ntations are going to -y, and are -2,-4,-6 etc on x.
From the graph, just knowing that e[5]-infinity is -1,85035452902718 as calculated by jaydfox in the beginning of this thread.
I magnified the Anderw's graph a little bit, and hoped his coordinates is linear in picture so axis do not change scale, so distance from negative x axis would give values in proportion to distance from x axis to e[5]-infinity, which is known an also present on the graph as first negative asymptote in the direction in -x.
Since the graph only shows values at x=-10 of course I may be wrong in hoping the proportion holds to infinity but for the alpha approximation it is enough to have just 2 -3 decimal signs to see the trend.
That is why I asked for exact values so I do not need this guesswork, but did not get them.
Ivars
From the graph, just knowing that e[5]-infinity is -1,85035452902718 as calculated by jaydfox in the beginning of this thread.
I magnified the Anderw's graph a little bit, and hoped his coordinates is linear in picture so axis do not change scale, so distance from negative x axis would give values in proportion to distance from x axis to e[5]-infinity, which is known an also present on the graph as first negative asymptote in the direction in -x.
Since the graph only shows values at x=-10 of course I may be wrong in hoping the proportion holds to infinity but for the alpha approximation it is enough to have just 2 -3 decimal signs to see the trend.
That is why I asked for exact values so I do not need this guesswork, but did not get them.
Ivars
