The UK Babe Channels Forum

Although I've not formally studied maths since it was part of my physics course at university a very long time ago, I still retained an interest in all things mathematical.
I was searching the internet recently for something to help with some software I was writing which required a factorial function and found this unusual formula which I had never seen before

Surprisingly it gives a pretty accurate value for factorial n
where n! = 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x ........... x (n-2) x (n-1) x n
BTW factorial 0 is defined to be 1
factorial 0 is 1 .......... formula error is approx +0.02 ...... 2%
factorial 1 is 1 .......... formula error is approx -0.004 ..... 0.4%
factorial 2 is 2 .......... formula error is approx -0.003 ..... 0.15%
factorial 3 is 6 .......... formula error is approx -0.003 ..... 0.05%
factorial 4 is 24 ......... formula error is approx -0.009 ..... 0.04%
etc
I'm fairly certain the formula accuracy improves as the numbers get bigger.
In the above formula, e is the mathematical constant which is approx 2.7183

I know how to write boobies on a calculator...yep thats me done for maths

I'm flabbergasted Watcher, I never dissected the equation before.
But when you look at Lolly's pissflaps it puts it all into prospective..

I've just checked and you are quite right WATCHER,but have you heard of the "Herons Formula" this particular Heron was shot though for eating my friends goldfish.triangle given SAS (two sides and the opposite angle)
= (1/2) a b sin C

triangle given a,b,c = [s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c)] when s = (a+b+c)/2 (Heron's formula)

regular polygon = (1/2) n sin(360°/n) S2
when n = # of sides and S = length from center to a corner

you went to uni and now your on here with the rest of us pervs eh. if there are no follow up questions to your post then i would just like to say i totally understand what that post was on about.

(19-02-2011 22:36 )malicious fan Wrote: [ -> ]you went to uni and now your on here with the rest of us pervs eh. if there are no follow up questions to your post then i would just like to say i totally understand what that post was on about.

It was'nt about anything,it was just me being damn right silly,and trying to amuse myself,i did'nt succeed,im still staring at this screen twiddling my thumbs,im afraid the "Babe channels" have lost their appeal for me,but i enjoy the forum.

(19-02-2011 22:54 )bombshell Wrote: [ -> ]

(19-02-2011 22:36 )malicious fan Wrote: [ -> ]you went to uni and now your on here with the rest of us pervs eh. if there are no follow up questions to your post then i would just like to say i totally understand what that post was on about.

It was'nt about anything,it was just me being damn right silly,and trying to amuse myself,i did'nt succeed,im still staring at this screen twiddling my thumbs,im afraid the "Babe channels" have lost their appeal for me,but i enjoy the forum.

i meant the watchers post, not your post. sorry.

(19-02-2011 21:57 )TheWatcher Wrote: [ -> ]

The formula is an approximation not an equality so ≈ and not = should be used.

I saw this amazing co-incidence in a book about pi some years ago


The value of pi has now been computed to over 1 trillion decimal places, I just showed the first 5 above.
more info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

It also works for Egyptian hieroglyphs, and as there are more of them the Egyptian version is more accurate.