Euler’s constant, (about 2.718 281 828) is one of the most important numbers in maths – both pure and applied. (Thinking about my final year university courses, the only one I’m pretty sure had no use for was History of Maths, and frankly that was an oversight.)
As a budding mathematical ninja, you’re doubtless keen to learn how to estimate powers of for pleasure and profit. Unfortunately, only pleasure is likely to come of it, unless you become a maths tutor.
Now: it’s easy enough to estimate – it has a nice, memorable decimal expansion, and depending on how roughly you want to play, you can look at it as 3 (-10%), 2.7(+0.7%) or (-0.3%).
However, your estimates for powers of are likely to be off by more than you’re used to in ninja maths – this is one situation where small errors add up fast. If you’re about as good as me, you’ll be happy to get things within about 5%.
If you want to know , you might pick the first one, and say ‘it’s 27 less 30% – take away about 8, so 19. It’s actually 20.08 – not brilliant, but ok for a ballpark figure. It’s not really obvious how to do – unless you know that is about 19,700, so , plus 2.1%, would be 19.7 plus about 0.4, or 20.1. That’s bang on.
Alternatively, you can do , which gives . Multiplying top and bottom by 3 gives ; that’s a shade over , or 20.25 – less about 1% to make up for the original estimate, making 20ish. The only limit is your number handling!
If you’re hot on your natural logs, you can reverse-engineer powers of from there, too – if you want to know , you can ask ‘ of what is 3.5? Well, that’s , so it must be about or 32. (It’s 33.11 – not bad).
When you’re working with negative powers of , the fractional version () comes into its own - because is just , and it’s easy to take powers of both of those.
For instance, is just , or . That’s a bit more than , or 0.133. (In fact, it’s 0.135). And itself comes up a lot: is 0.367, while is 0.368. I could live with that as an estimate!