Compare the results of these two sets of code. The first one is based on the MRB constant (0.18785...), and the second one, 1/e (0.367879...). Can you change these 3 trig formulas so that 1/e (or any other constant) gives the same appearance as the MRB constant does? Or are these graphs from these 3 families of trig formulas unique to the MRB constant?

m = 0.1878596424620671202485179340542732300559030949001387861720046840\
89477231564660213703296654433107496903
ListPlot[Table[Sin[Pi/m*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}]]
ListPlot[Table[Cos[Pi/m*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}]]
ListPlot[Table[
  Tan[Pi/m*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}], 
 Joined -> True]

d = 1/E
ListPlot[Table[Sin[Pi/d*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}]]
ListPlot[Table[Cos[Pi/d*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}]]
ListPlot[Table[
  Tan[Pi/d*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}], 
 Joined -> True]

P.S. It doesn't take much to simply get "geometric" shapes out of this family of trig formulas. Try the following code:

d = 1/E - 10^-2
ListPlot[Table[Sin[Pi/d*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}]]
ListPlot[Table[Cos[Pi/d*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}]]
ListPlot[Table[
  Tan[Pi/d*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}], 
 Joined -> True]

Plus, it don't take much error in the MRB constant's approximate value to really disfigure it's graphs. Try this code where you only use 12 digits of precision :for the MRB constant

m = 0.187859642462
ListPlot[Table[Sin[Pi/m*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}]]
ListPlot[Table[Cos[Pi/m*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}]]
ListPlot[Table[
  Tan[Pi/m*(5060936308 + 78389363/24*n)], {n, -100, 100}], 
 Joined -> True]

"I compare 300 years of summation methods for the MRB constant."

In the first post I mentioned summing the MRB constant by Euler's method and Crandall's method. Here I compare them:

Here are faster methods where m is the known value of the MRB constant found in the above replies:

While verifying 7-million digits, I broke some speed records with two of my i9-14900K 6400MHZRAM (overclocked CPUs), using Mathematica 11.3 and the lightweight grid. They are generally faster than the 3 node MRB constant supercomputer with remote kernels! These are all absolute timings! How does your computer compare to these? What can you do with other software? ![Table of Records left][1] ![Table of Records right][2] For column "=F" (highlighted in green) see linked "10203050100" . At the bottom, see attached "kernel priority 2 computers.nb" for column =B, "3 fastest computers together.nb" for column =C and linked "speed records 5 10 20 30 K" also speed 50K speed 100k, speed 300k and 30p0683 hour million.nb for column =D for some documentation. For the mostly red column including the single, record, 10,114 second 300,000 digit run " =E" is in the linked "3 fastest computers together 2.nb.} For the partial column of two 6000MHz 14900K' with red text and yellow highlight, see speed 100 300 1M XMP tweaked.

"

This is another comparison of my fastest computers' timings in calculating digits of CMRB:

The blue column (using the Wolfram Lightweight Grid) is documented here.

The i9-12900KS column is documented here.

The i9-13900KS column is documented here.

The 300,000 digits result in the i9-13900KS column is here, where it ends with the following:

  Finished on Mon 21 Nov 2022 19:55:52. Processor and actual time 
         were 6180.27 and 10114.4781964 s. respectively

  Enter MRB1 to print 301492 digits. The error from a 6,500,000 or more digit 
 calculation that used a different method is  

 Out[72]= 0.*10^-301494

These 2023 records still stand:

Remembering that the integrated analog of the MRB constant is

These results are from the Timing[] command:

The i9-12900KS column is documented here.

The 2024 i9-14900K documentation here

The 2023 i9-13900K column documentation with the 60,000 proven to be accurate digits used to check all of these records, in this link

While the i-13900K worked on the 40,000 digits of M2, the processor's speed was close to 6GHz: As mentioned somewhere above, the RAM speed is 4800MHz:

Attachments:

3 fastest comput...nb

kernel priority ...nb

If above this you see the title "Try to beat these MRB constant records!" in order to see the first 9 sections, the basic theory of the MRB constant (CMRB), you'll need to refresh the page.

§B "Rational results" while summing (CMRB).

This is just an observation about the MRB constant sum If the following Mathematica computations are correct, you get near rational results, by a factor of log10, when starting the sum from large integer powers of 10.

It looks like for p(x)= approximation (in blue) of x, limit as x-> infinity of p(x)/p(x+1) is 1/10.

§13.

MRB Constant Records,

Google Open AI Chat CPT gave the following introduction to the MRB constant records:

It is not uncommon for researchers and mathematicians to compute large numbers of digits for mathematical constants or other mathematical quantities for various reasons. One reason might be to test and improve numerical algorithms for computing the value of the constant. Another reason might be to use the constant as a benchmark to test the performance of a computer or to compare the performance of different computers. Some people may also be interested in the mathematical properties of the constant, and computing a large number of digits can help to reveal patterns or other features of the constant that may not be apparent with fewer digits. Additionally, some people may simply find the process of calculating a large number of digits to be a challenging and rewarding intellectual pursuit. It seems that the MRB constant, also known as the CMRB constant, is a mathematical constant defined as the sum of the infinite series Sum[(-1)^k(k^(1/k)-1),{k,1,n}] and has a decimal expansion of 0.187859... The MRB constant has been calculated to various digits using various methods and computers. The previous record number of digits was 40,000, calculated in 2006 using a program written in Mathematica and run on a Windows desktop computer. It is not known whether the MRB constant is algebraic, transcendental, or irrational. The process of computing the MRB constant using various methods and devices, including computers and software such as Mathcad, Mathematica, and Sigma. You have calculated 6,500,000 digits of the MRB constant using a supercomputer, with a computation time of 72.526 days and an absolute time of 185.491 days. You have mentioned that the error from a 6,000,000 or more-digit calculation that used a different method is 0.*10^-6029992.

When asked how, in detail, to calculate the digits of the MRB constant:

To calculate the digits of the MRB constant in more detail, you can use the following steps:

Write a program or use an existing software tool that can calculate the partial sums of the series (-1)^k k^(1/k) for a given value of n.

Use this program or tool to calculate the partial sums for a large value of n, such as n = 10,000 or n = 100,000.

Repeat step 2 for increasing values of n until the partial sums converge to a constant value. The more digits of accuracy you want, the larger n you will need to use.

The digits of the MRB constant are the digits of the converged value obtained in step 3.

It is important to note that calculating the digits of the MRB constant is a computationally intensive task that requires a fast computer and a good implementation of the algorithms for calculating the partial sums of the series (-1)^k k^(1/k). In addition, it is not known whether the MRB constant is algebraic, transcendental, or even irrational, so it may not be possible to calculate all of its digits. \

My inspiration to compute a lot of digits of C_MRB came from the following website by Simon Plouffe.

There, computer mathematicians calculate millions, then billions of digits of constants like pi, when with only 65 decimal places of pi, we could determine the size of the observable universe to within a Planck length (where the uncertainty of our measure of the universe would be greater than the universe itself)!

In contrast, 65 digits of the MRB constant "measures" the value of -1+ssqrt(2)-3^(1/3) up to n^(1/n) where n is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which can be called 1 unvigintillion or just 10^66.

And why compute 65 digits of the MRB constant? Because having that much precision is the only way to solve such a problem as 

1465528573348167959709563453947173222018952610559967812891154^ m-m, where m is the MRB constant, which gives the near integer "to beat all," 200799291330.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999900450...

And why compute millions of digits of it? uhhhhhhhhhh.... "Because it's there!" (...Yeah, thanks George Mallory!)
And why?? (c'est ma raison d'être!!!)

So, below are reproducible results with methods. The utmost care has been taken to assure the accuracy of the record number of digit calculations. These records represent the advancement of consumer-level computers, 21st-century Iterative methods, and clever programming over the past 23 years.

Here are some record computations of C_MRB. Let me know if you know of any others!

1 digit of the

C_MRB with my TI-92s, by adding -1+sqrt(2)-3^(1/3)+4^(1/4)-5^(1/5)+6^(1/6)... as far as practicle, was computed. That first digit, by the way, was just 0. Then by using the sum key, to compute $\sum _{n=1}^{1000 } (-1)^n \left(n^{1/n}\right),$ the first correct decimal i.e. (.1). It gave (.1_91323989714) which is close to what Mathematica gives for summing to only an upper limit of 1000.

4 decimals(.1878) of CMRB were computed on Jan 11, 1999, with the Inverse Symbolic Calculator, applying the command evalf( 0.1879019633921476926565342538468+sum((-1)^n* (n^(1/n)-1),n=140001..150000)); where 0.1879019633921476926565342538468 was the running total of t=sum((-1)^n* (n^(1/n)-1),n=1..10000), then t= t+the sum from (10001.. 20000), then t=t+the sum from (20001..30000) ... up to t=t+the sum from (130001..140000).

5 correct decimals (rounded to .18786), in Jan of 1999, were drawn from CMRB using Mathcad 3.1 on a 50 MHz 80486 IBM 486 personal computer operating on Windows 95.

 9 digits of CMRB shortly afterward using Mathcad 7 professional on the Pentium II mentioned below, by summing (-1)^x x^(1/x) for x=1 to 10,000,000, 20,000,000, and many more, then linearly approximating the sum to a what a few billion terms would have given.

 500 digits of CMRB with an online tool called Sigma on Jan 23, 1999. See [http://marvinrayburns.com/Original_MRB_Post.html][10]   if you can read the printed and scanned copy there.

Sigma still can be found here.

5,000 digits of CMRB in September of 1999 in 2 hours on a 350 MHz PentiumII,133 MHz 64 MB of RAM using the simple PARI commands \p 5000;sumalt(n=1,((-1)^n*(n^(1/n)-1))), after allocating enough memory.

To beat that, it was done on July 4, 2022, in 1 second on the 5.5 GHz CMRBSC 3 with 4800MHz 64 GB of RAM by Newton's method using Convergence acceleration of alternating series. Henri Cohen, Fernando Rodriguez Villegas, Don Zagier acceleration "Algorithm 1" to at least 5000 decimals. (* Newer loop with Newton interior. *)

documentation here

And here

I did it using an i9-14900K, overclocked, with 64GB of 6400MHz RAM. I used my own program. Processor and actual time were 0.796875 and 0.8710556 s, respectively.

 6,995 accurate digits of CMRB were computed on June 10-11, 2003, over a period, of 10 hours, on a 450 MHz P3 with an available 512 MB RAM,

To beat that, it was done in <2.5 seconds on the MRBCSC 3 on July 7, 2022 (more than 14,400 times as fast!)

documentation here

To beat that, it was done in <1. 684 seconds on April 10, 2024 (more than 21,377 times as fast!). documentation [here][19]:
In[3]:= 10 hour*3600 seconds/hour/(1.684 seconds)

Out[3]= 21377.7

8000 digits of CMRB completed, using a Sony Vaio P4 2.66 GHz laptop computer with 960 MB of available RAM, at 2:04 PM 3/25/2004,

  11,000 digits of CMRB> on March 01, 2006, with a 3 GHz PD with 2 GB RAM available calculated.

 40 000 digits of CMRB in 33 hours and 26 min via my program written in Mathematica 5.2 on Nov 24, 2006. The computation was run on a 32-bit Windows 3 GHz PD desktop computer using 3.25 GB of Ram.
The program was

    Block[{a, b = -1, c = -1 - d, d = (3 + Sqrt[8])^n, 
      n = 131 Ceiling[40000/100], s = 0}, a[0] = 1;
     d = (d + 1/d)/2; For[m = 1, m < n, a[m] = (1 + m)^(1/(1 + m)); m++];
     For[k = 0, k < n, c = b - c;
      b = b (k + n) (k - n)/((k + 1/2) (k + 1)); s = s + c*a[k]; k++];
     N[1/2 - s/d, 40000]]

 60,000 digits of CMRB on July 29, 2007, at 11:57 PM EST in 50.51 hours on a 2.6 GHz AMD Athlon with 64-bit Windows XP. The max memory used was 4.0 GB of RAM.

65,000 digits of CMRB in only 50.50 hours on a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo using 64-bit Windows XP on Aug 3, 2007, at 12:40 AM EST, The max memory used was 5.0 GB of RAM.

It looked similar to this stock image:

100,000 digits of CMRB on Aug 12, 2007, at 8:00 PM EST, were computed in 170 hours on a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo using 64-bit Windows XP. The max memory used was 11.3 GB of RAM. The typical daily record of memory used was 8.5 GB of RAM.
To beat that, on the 4th of July 2022, the same digits in 1/4 of an hour using the MRB constant supercomputer.
To beat that, on the 7th of July 2022, the same digits in 1/5 of an hour. 
To beat that, on the 4th of April 2024, the same digits in 1/6 of an hour. using a pair of i9-14900Ks in parallel (100,000% as fast as the first 100,000 run by a GHz Core 2 Duo!)

see one sixth hour hundred k.

 150,000 digits of CMRB on Sep 23, 2007, at 11:00 AM EST. Computed in 330 hours on a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo using 64-bit Windows XP. The max memory used was 22 GB of RAM. The typical daily record of memory used was 17 GB of RAM.

  200,000 digits of CMRB using Mathematica 5.2 on March 16, 2008, at 3:00 PM EST,. Found in 845 hours, on a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo using 64-bit Windows XP. The max memory used was 47 GB of RAM. The typical daily record of memory used was 28 GB of RAM.

300,000 digits of CMRB were destroyed (washed away by Hurricane Ike ) on September 13, 2008 sometime between 2:00 PM - 8:00 PM EST. Computed for a long  4015. Hours (23.899 weeks or 1.4454*10^7 seconds) on a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo using 64-bit Windows XP. The max memory used was 91 GB of RAM. The Mathematica 6.0 code is used as follows:

    Block[{$MaxExtraPrecision = 300000 + 8, a, b = -1, c = -1 - d, 
     d = (3 + Sqrt[8])^n, n = 131 Ceiling[300000/100], s = 0}, a[0] = 1; 
     d = (d + 1/d)/2; For[m = 1, m < n, a[m] = (1 + m)^(1/(1 + m)); m++]; 
     For[k = 0, k < n, c = b - c; 
      b = b (k + n) (k - n)/((k + 1/2) (k + 1)); s = s + c*a[k]; k++]; 
     N[1/2 - s/d, 300000]]

225,000 digits of CMRB were started with a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo using 64-bit Windows XP on September 18, 2008. It was completed in 1072 hours. 

250,000 digits were attempted but failed to be completed to a serious internal error that restarted the machine. The error occurred sometime on December 24, 2008, between 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The computation began on November 16, 2008, at 10:03 PM EST. The Max memory used was 60.5 GB.

 250,000 digits of CMRB on Jan 29, 2009, 1:26:19 pm (UTC-0500) EST, with a multiple-step Mathematica command running on a dedicated 64-bit XP using 4 GB DDR2 RAM onboard and 36 GB virtual. The computation took only 333.102 hours. The digits are at http://marvinrayburns.com/250KMRB.txt. The computation is completely documented.

  300000 digit search of CMRB was initiated using an i7 with 8.0 GB of DDR3 RAM onboard on Sun 28 Mar 2010 at 21:44:50 (UTC-0500) EST, but it failed due to hardware problems.

  299,998 Digits of CMRB: The computation began Fri 13 Aug 2010 10:16:20 pm EDT and ended 2.23199*10^6 seconds later |  Wednesday, September 8, 2010. using Mathematica 6.0 for Microsoft Windows (64-bit) (June 19, 2007), which averages 7.44 seconds per digit.using a Dell Studio XPS 8100 i7 860 @ 2.80 GHz with 8GB physical DDR3 RAM. Windows 7 reserved an additional 48.929 GB of virtual Ram.

300,000 digits to the right of the decimal point of CMRB from Sat 8 Oct 2011 23:50:40 to Sat 5 Nov 2011 19:53:42 (2.405*10^6 seconds later). This run was 0.5766 seconds per digit slower than the 299,998 digit computation even though it used 16 GB physical DDR3 RAM on the same machine. The working precision and accuracy goal combination were maximized for exactly 300,000 digits, and the result was automatically saved as a file instead of just being displayed on the front end. Windows reserved a total of 63 GB of working memory, of which 52 GB were recorded as being used. The 300,000 digits came from the Mathematica 7.0 command`
    Quit; DateString[]
    digits = 300000; str = OpenWrite[]; SetOptions[str, 
    PageWidth -> 1000]; time = SessionTime[]; Write[str, 
    NSum[(-1)^n*(n^(1/n) - 1), {n, \[Infinity]}, 
    WorkingPrecision -> digits + 3, AccuracyGoal -> digits, 
    Method -> "AlternatingSigns"]]; timeused = 
    SessionTime[] - time; here = Close[str]
    DateString[]

314159 digits of the constant took 3 tries due to hardware failure. Finishing on September 18, 2012, 314159 digits, taking 59 GB of RAM.  The digits came from the Mathematica 8.0.4 code`

    DateString[]
    NSum[(-1)^n*(n^(1/n) - 1), {n, \[Infinity]}, 
    WorkingPrecision -> 314169, Method -> "AlternatingSigns"] // Timing
    DateString[]

1,000,000 digits of CMRB  for the first time in history in 18 days, 9 hours 11 minutes, 34.253417 seconds by Sam Noble of the Apple Advanced Computation Group.

1,048,576 digits of CMRB in a lightning-fast 76.4 hours, finishing on Dec 11, 2012, were scored by Dr. Richard Crandall, an Apple scientist and head of its advanced computational group. That was on a 2.93 GHz 8-core Nehalem,  1066 MHz, PC3-8500 DDR3 ECC RAM.

    To beat that, in Aug of 2018, 1,004,993 digits in 53.5 hours 34 hours computation time (from the timing command) with 10 DDR4 RAM (of up to 3000 MHz) supported processor cores overclocked up to 4.7 GHz! Search this post for "53.5" for documentation. 

    To beat that, on Sept 21, 2018: 1,004,993 digits in 50.37 hours of absolute time and 35.4 hours of computation time (from the timing command) with 18  (DDR3 and DDR4) processor cores!  Search this post for "50.37 hours" for documentation.**

    To beat that, on May 11, 2019, over 1,004,993 digits in 45.5 hours of absolute time and only 32.5 hours of computation time, using 28 kernels on 18 DDR4 RAM (of up to 3200 MHz) supported cores overclocked up to  5.1 GHz  Search 'Documented in the attached ":3 fastest computers together 3.nb." '  for the post that has the attached documenting notebook.

    To beat that, over 1,004,993 correct digits in 44 hours of absolute time and 35.4206 hours of computation time on 10/19/20, using 3/4 of the MRB constant supercomputer 2 -- see https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/bmmmburns/Published/44%20hour%20million.nb  for documentation.

    To beat that, a 1,004,993 correct digits computation in 36.7 hours of absolute time and only 26.4 hours of computation time on Sun 15 May 2022 at 06:10:50, using 3/4  of the MRB constant supercomputer 3. Ram Speed was 4800MHz, and all 30 cores were clocked at up to 5.2 GHz.



    To beat that, a 1,004,993 correct digits computation in 31.2319  hours of absolute time and 16.579  hours of computation time from the Timing[] command using 3/4 of the MRB constant supercomputer 4, finishing Dec 5, 2022. Ram Speed was 5200MHz, and all of the 24 performance cores were clocked at up to 5.95 GHz, plus 32 efficiency cores running slower. using 24 kernels on the Wolfram Lightweight grid over an i-12900k, 12900KS, and 13900K.
    To beat that, a 1,004,993 correct digits computation in 30. hours of absolute time on Marh 21, 2024.

see 30 hour million

36.7 hours million notebook

31.2319 hours million

 A little over 1,200,000 digits, previously, of CMRB in 11   days, 21 hours, 17 minutes, and 41 seconds (I finished on March 31, 2013, using a six-core Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20 GHz. see https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/bmmmburns/Published/36%20hour%20million.nb

for details.

2,000,000 or more digit computation of CMRB on May 17, 2013, using only around 10GB of RAM. It took 37 days 5 hours, 6 minutes 47.1870579 seconds. using a six-core Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20 GHz.

 3,014,991 digits of CMRB,  world record computation of **C**<sub>*MRB*</sub> was finished on Sun 21 Sep 2014 at 18:35:06. It took one month 27 days, 2 hours 45 minutes 15 seconds. The processor time from the 3,000,000+ digit computation was 22 days.The 3,014,991 digits of **C**<sub>*MRB*</sub> with Mathematica 10.0. using Burns' new version of Richard Crandall's code in the attached 3M.nb, optimized for my platform and large computations. Also, a six-core Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20 GHz with 64 GB of RAM, of which only 16 GB was used. Can you beat it (in more digits, less memory used, or less time taken)? This confirms that my previous "2,000,000 or more digit computation" was accurate to 2,009,993 digits. they were used to check the first several digits of this computation. See attached 3M.nb for the full code and digits.

Over 4 million digits of CMRB were finished on Wed 16 Jan 2019, 19:55:20. It took four years of continuous tries. This successful run took 65.13 days absolute time, with a processor time of 25.17 days, on a 3.7 GHz overclocked up to 4.7 GHz on all cores Intel 6 core computer with 3000 MHz RAM. According to this computation, the previous record, 3,000,000+ digit computation, was accurate to 3,014,871 decimals, as this computation used my algorithm for computing n^(1/n) as found in chapter 3 in the paper at

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0898122189900242 and the 3 million+ computation used Crandall's algorithm. Both algorithms outperform Newton's method per calculation and iteration.


Example use of M R Burns' algorithm to compute 123456789^(1/123456789) 10,000,000 digits:

ClearSystemCache[]; n = 123456789;
(*n is the n in n^(1/n)*)
x = N[n^(1/n),100];
(*x starts out as a relatively small precision approximation to n^(1/n)*)
pc = Precision[x]; pr = 10000000;
(*pr is the desired precision of your n^(1/n)*)
Print[t0 = Timing[While[pc < pr, pc = Min[4 pc, pr];
x = SetPrecision[x, pc];
y = x^n; z = (n - y)/y;
t = 2 n - 1; t2 = t^2;
x = x*(1 + SetPrecision[4.5, pc] (n - 1)/t2 + (n + 1) z/(2 n t)
- SetPrecision[13.5, pc] n (n - 1)/(3 n t2 + t^3 z))];
(*You get a much faster version of N[n^(1/n),pr]*)
N[n - x^n, 10]](*The error*)];
ClearSystemCache[]; n = 123456789; Print[t1 = Timing[N[n - N[n^(1/n), pr]^n, 10]]]

 Gives

  {25.5469,0.*10^-9999984}

  {101.359,0.*10^-9999984}




  More information is available upon request.

 More than 5 million digits of CMRB were found on Fri 19 Jul 2019, 18:49:02; methods are described in the reply below, which begins with "Attempts at a 5,000,000 digit calculation ."   For this 5 million digit calculation of **C**<sub>*MRB*</sub> using the 3 node MRB supercomputer: processor time was 40 days. And the actual time was 64 days.   That is in less absolute time than the 4-million-digit computation, which used just one node.

Six million digits of CMRB after eight tries in 19 months. (Search "8/24/2019 It's time for more digits!" below.) finishing on Tue, 30 Mar 2021, at 22:02:49 in 160 days.
    The MRB constant supercomputer 2 said the following:
    Finished on Tue 30 Mar 2021, 22:02:49. computation and absolute time were
    5.28815859375*10^6 and 1.38935720536301*10^7 s. respectively
    Enter MRB1 to print 6029991 digits. The error from a 5,000,000 or more-digit calculation that used a different method is      
    0.*10^-5024993.

That means that the 5,000,000-digit computation Was accurate to 5024993 decimals!!!

5,609,880, verified by two distinct algorithms for x^(1/x), digits of CMRB on Thu 4 Mar 2021 at 08:03:45. The 5,500,000+ digit computation using a totally different method showed that many decimals are in common with the 6,000,000+ digit computation in 160.805 days.

6,500,000 digits of CMRB on my second try,

Successful code was:

In[2]:= Needs["SubKernels`LocalKernels`"]
Block[{$mathkernel = $mathkernel <> " -threadpriority=2"}, 
 LaunchKernels[]]

Out[3]= {"KernelObject"[1, "local"], "KernelObject"[2, "local"], 
 "KernelObject"[3, "local"], "KernelObject"[4, "local"], 
 "KernelObject"[5, "local"], "KernelObject"[6, "local"], 
 "KernelObject"[7, "local"], "KernelObject"[8, "local"], 
 "KernelObject"[9, "local"], "KernelObject"[10, "local"]}

In[4]:= Print["Start time is ", ds = DateString[], "."];
prec = 6500000;
(**Number of required decimals.*.*)ClearSystemCache[];
T0 = SessionTime[];
expM[pre_] := 
  Module[{a, d, s, k, bb, c, end, iprec, xvals, x, pc, cores = 16(*=4*
    number of physical cores*), tsize = 2^7, chunksize, start = 1, ll,
     ctab, pr = Floor[1.005 pre]}, chunksize = cores*tsize;
   n = Floor[1.32 pr];
   end = Ceiling[n/chunksize];
   Print["Iterations required: ", n];
   Print["Will give ", end, 
    " time estimates, each more accurate than the previous."];
   Print["Will stop at ", end*chunksize, 
    " iterations to ensure precsion of around ", pr, 
    " decimal places."]; d = ChebyshevT[n, 3];
   {b, c, s} = {SetPrecision[-1, 1.1*n], -d, 0};
   iprec = Ceiling[pr/396288];
   Do[xvals = Flatten[Parallelize[Table[Table[ll = start + j*tsize + l;
         x = N[E^(Log[ll]/(ll)), iprec];
         pc = iprec;
         While[pc < pr/65536, pc = Min[3 pc, pr/65536];
          x = SetPrecision[x, pc];
          y = x^ll - ll;
          x = x (1 - 2 y/((ll + 1) y + 2 ll ll));];
         (**N[Exp[Log[ll]/ll],pr/99072]**)
         x = SetPrecision[x, pr/16384];
         xll = x^ll; z = (ll - xll)/xll;
         t = 2 ll - 1; t2 = t^2;
         x = 
          x*(1 + SetPrecision[4.5, pr/16384] (ll - 1)/
               t2 + (ll + 1) z/(2 ll t) - 
             SetPrecision[13.5, 
               pr/16384] ll (ll - 1) 1/(3 ll t2 + t^3 z));(*N[Exp[Log[
         ll]/ll],pr/4096]*)x = SetPrecision[x, pr/4096];
         xll = x^ll; z = (ll - xll)/xll;
         t = 2 ll - 1; t2 = t^2;
         x = 
          x*(1 + SetPrecision[4.5, pr/4096] (ll - 1)/
               t2 + (ll + 1) z/(2 ll t) - 
             SetPrecision[13.5, 
               pr/4096] ll (ll - 1) 1/(3 ll t2 + t^3 z));(*N[Exp[Log[
         ll]/ll],pr/4096]*)x = SetPrecision[x, pr/1024];
         xll = x^ll; z = (ll - xll)/xll;
         t = 2 ll - 1; t2 = t^2;
         x = 
          x*(1 + SetPrecision[4.5, pr/1024] (ll - 1)/
               t2 + (ll + 1) z/(2 ll t) - 
             SetPrecision[13.5, 
               pr/1024] ll (ll - 1) 1/(3 ll t2 + t^3 z));(*N[Exp[Log[
         ll]/ll],pr/1024]*)x = SetPrecision[x, pr/256];
         xll = x^ll; z = (ll - xll)/xll;
         t = 2 ll - 1; t2 = t^2;
         x = 
          x*(1 + SetPrecision[4.5, pr/256] (ll - 1)/
               t2 + (ll + 1) z/(2 ll t) - 
             SetPrecision[13.5, 
               pr/256] ll (ll - 1) 1/(3 ll t2 + t^3 z));(*N[Exp[Log[
         ll]/ll],pr/256]*)x = SetPrecision[x, pr/64];
         xll = x^ll; z = (ll - xll)/xll;
         t = 2 ll - 1; t2 = t^2;
         x = 
          x*(1 + SetPrecision[4.5, pr/64] (ll - 1)/
               t2 + (ll + 1) z/(2 ll t) - 
             SetPrecision[13.5, 
               pr/64] ll (ll - 1) 1/(3 ll t2 + t^3 z));(**N[Exp[Log[
         ll]/ll],pr/64]**)x = SetPrecision[x, pr/16];
         xll = x^ll; z = (ll - xll)/xll;
         t = 2 ll - 1; t2 = t^2;
         x = 
          x*(1 + SetPrecision[4.5, pr/16] (ll - 1)/
               t2 + (ll + 1) z/(2 ll t) - 
             SetPrecision[13.5, 
               pr/16] ll (ll - 1) 1/(3 ll t2 + t^3 z));(**N[Exp[Log[
         ll]/ll],pr/16]**)x = SetPrecision[x, pr/4];
         xll = x^ll; z = (ll - xll)/xll;
         t = 2 ll - 1; t2 = t^2;
         x = 
          x*(1 + SetPrecision[4.5, pr/4] (ll - 1)/
               t2 + (ll + 1) z/(2 ll t) - 
             SetPrecision[13.5, 
               pr/4] ll (ll - 1) 1/(3 ll t2 + t^3 z));(**N[Exp[Log[
         ll]/ll],pr/4]**)x = SetPrecision[x, pr];
         xll = x^ll; z = (ll - xll)/xll;
         t = 2 ll - 1; t2 = t^2;
         x = 
          x*(1 + SetPrecision[4.5, pr] (ll - 1)/
               t2 + (ll + 1) z/(2 ll t) - 
             SetPrecision[13.5, 
               pr] ll (ll - 1) 1/(3 ll t2 + t^3 z));(*N[Exp[Log[ll]/
         ll],pr]*)x, {l, 0, tsize - 1}], {j, 0, cores - 1}]]];
    ctab = ParallelTable[Table[c = b - c;
       ll = start + l - 2;
       b *= 2 (ll + n) (ll - n)/((ll + 1) (2 ll + 1));
       c, {l, chunksize}], Method -> "Automatic"];
    s += ctab.(xvals - 1);
    start += chunksize;
    st = SessionTime[] - T0; kc = k*chunksize;
    ti = (st)/(kc + 10^-4)*(n)/(3600)/(24);
    If[kc > 1, 
     Print["As of  ", DateString[], " there were ", kc, 
      " iterations done in ", N[st, 5], " seconds. That is ", 
      N[kc/st, 5], " iterations/s. ", N[kc/(end*chunksize)*100, 7], 
      "% complete.", " It should take ", N[ti, 6], " days or ", 
      N[ti*24*3600, 4], "s, and finish ", DatePlus[ds, ti], "."]];
    Print[];, {k, 0, end - 1}];
   N[-s/d, pr]];
t2 = Timing[MRB1 = expM[prec];]; Print["Finished on ", 
 DateString[], ". Proccessor and actual time were ", t2[[1]], " and ",
  SessionTime[] - T0, " s. respectively"];
Print["Enter MRB1 to print ", 
 Floor[Precision[
   MRB1]], " digits. The error from a 5,000,000 or more digit \
calculation that used a different method is  "]; N[M6M - MRB1, 20]

The MRB constant supercomputer replied,

Finished on Wed 16 Mar 2022 02: 02: 10. computation and absolute time
were 6.26628*10^6 and 1.60264035419592*10^7s respectively Enter MRB1
to print 6532491 digits. The error from a 6, 000, 000 or more digit
the calculation that used a different method is 
0.*10^-6029992.

"Computation time" 72.526 days.

 "Absolute time" 185.491 days.

It would have taken my first computer, a TRS-80 at least 4307 years with today's best mathematical algorithms. 15 GHz/1.77 MHZ 185.491 days1 year/(365 days)

It was instantly checked to 6,029,992 or so, digits by the program itself. A 7-million-digit run using different number of digits of Exp[Log[ll]/ll] computed by each method, is in process, which will verify the residue of digits.

Next is "§0. Wolfram+AI is the quintessential team evaluating the MRB constant." Else refresh.

Programs to compute the integrated analog

The efficient programs

Wed 29 Jul 2015 11:40:10

From an initial accuracy of only 7 digits,

0.07077603931152880353952802183028200137`19.163032309866352 - 
 0.68400038943793212918274445999266112671`20.1482024033675 I - \
(NIntegrate[(-1)^t (t^(1/t) - 1), {t, 1, Infinity}, 
    WorkingPrecision -> 20] - 2 I/Pi)

we have the first efficient program to compute the integrated analog (MKB) of the MRB constant, which is good for 35,000 digits.

Block[{$MaxExtraPrecision = 200}, prec = 4000; f[x_] = x^(1/x);
 ClearAll[a, b, h];
 Print[DateString[]];
 Print[T0 = SessionTime[]];

 If[prec > 35000, d = Ceiling[0.002 prec], 
  d = Ceiling[0.264086 + 0.00143657 prec]];

 h[n_] := 
  Sum[StirlingS1[n, k]*
    Sum[(-j)^(k - j)*Binomial[k, j], {j, 0, k}], {k, 1, n}];

 h[0] = 1;
 g = 2 I/Pi - Sum[-I^(n + 1) h[n]/Pi^(n + 1), {n, 1, d}];

 sinplus1 := 
  NIntegrate[
   Simplify[Sin[Pi*x]*D[f[x], {x, d + 1}]], {x, 1, Infinity}, 
   WorkingPrecision -> prec*(105/100), 
   PrecisionGoal -> prec*(105/100)];

 cosplus1 := 
  NIntegrate[
   Simplify[Cos[Pi*x]*D[f[x], {x, d + 1}]], {x, 1, Infinity}, 
   WorkingPrecision -> prec*(105/100), 
   PrecisionGoal -> prec*(105/100)];

 middle := Print[SessionTime[] - T0, " seconds"];

 end := Module[{}, Print[SessionTime[] - T0, " seconds"];
   Print[c = Abs[a + b]]; Print[DateString[]]];


 If[Mod[d, 4] == 0, 
  Print[N[a = -Re[g] - (1/Pi)^(d + 1)*sinplus1, prec]];
  middle;
  Print[N[b = -I (Im[g] - (1/Pi)^(d + 1)*cosplus1), prec]];
  end];


 If[Mod[d, 4] == 1, 
  Print[N[a = -Re[g] - (1/Pi)^(d + 1)*cosplus1, prec]];
  middle;
  Print[N[b = -I (Im[g] + (1/Pi)^(d + 1)*sinplus1), prec]]; end];

 If[Mod[d, 4] == 2, 
  Print[N[a = -Re[g] + (1/Pi)^(d + 1)*sinplus1, prec]];
  middle;
  Print[N[b = -I (Im[g] + (1/Pi)^(d + 1)*cosplus1), prec]];
  end];

 If[Mod[d, 4] == 3, 
  Print[N[a = -Re[g] + (1/Pi)^(d + 1)*cosplus1, prec]];
  middle;
  Print[N[b = -I (Im[g] - (1/Pi)^(d + 1)*sinplus1), prec]];
  end];]

May 2018

I got substantial improvement in calculating the digits of MKB by using V11.3 in May 2018, my new computer (processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700 CPU @ 3.60GHz, 3601 MHz, 4 Core(s), 8 Logical Processor(s) with 16 GB 2400 MH DDR4 RAM):

Digits  Seconds
2000    67.5503022
3000    217.096312
4000    514.48334
5000    1005.936397
10000   8327.18526
 20000  71000

They are found in the attached 2018 quad MKB.nb.

They are twice as fast,(or more) as my old records with the same program using Mathematica 10.2 in July 2015 on my old big computer (a six-core Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20 GHz 3.20 GHz with 64 GB of 1066 MHz DDR3 RAM):

digits          seconds

2000    256.3853590 
3000    794.4361122
4000       1633.5822870
5000        2858.9390025
10000      17678.7446323 
20000      121431.1895170
40000       I got error msg

May 2021

After finding the following rapidly converging integral for MKB,

(See Primary Proof 3 in the first post.)

I finally computed 200,000 digits of MKB (0.070776 - 0.684 I...) Started ‎Saturday, ‎May ‎15, ‎2021, ‏‎10: 54: 17 AM, and finished at 9:23:50 am EDT | Friday, August 20, 2021, for a total of 8.37539*10^6 seconds or 96 days 22 hours 29 minutes 50 seconds.

The full computation, verification to 100,000 digits, and hyperlinks to various digits are found below at 200k MKB A.nb. The code was

g[x_] = x^(1/x); u := (t/(1 - t)); Timing[
 MKB1 = (-I Quiet[
      NIntegrate[(g[(1 + u I)])/(Exp[Pi u] (1 - t)^2), {t, 0, 1}, 
       WorkingPrecision -> 200000, Method -> "DoubleExponential", 
       MaxRecursion -> 17]] - I/Pi)]

After finding the above more rapidly converging integral for MKB, In only 80.5 days, 189,330 real digits and 166,700 imaginary were confirmed to be correct by the following different formula. as Seen at https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/bmmmburns/Published/2nd%20200k%20MRB.nb

All digits at

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/bmmmburns/Published/200K%20confirmed%20MKB.nb (Recommended to open in desktop Mathematica.)

N[(Timing[
   FM2200K - (NIntegrate[(Exp[Log[t]/t - Pi t/I]), {t, 1, Infinity I},
        WorkingPrecision -> 200000, Method -> "Trapezoidal", 
       MaxRecursion -> 17] - I/Pi)]), 20]

I've learned more about what MaxRecusion is required for 250,000 digits to be verified from the two different formulas, and they are being computed as I write. It will probably take over 100 days.

Laurent series for the analog

I've not perfected the method, but here is how to compute the integrated analog of the MRB constant from series.

$f = (-1)^z (z^(1/z) - 1); MKB = 
 NIntegrate[$f, {z, 1, Infinity I}, WorkingPrecision -> 500]; 
Table[s[x_] = Series[$f, {z, n, x}] // Normal; 
  Timing[Table[
    MKB - Quiet[ 
      NIntegrate[s[x] /. z -> n, {n, 1, Infinity I}, 
       WorkingPrecision -> p, Method -> "Trapezoidal", 
       MaxRecursion -> Ceiling[Log2[p/2]]]], {p, 100, 100 x, 
     100}]], {x, 1, 10}] // TableForm

Table[Short[s[n]], {n, 1, 5}] // TableForm

Attachments:

200k MKB A.nb

Time for a quick memorial:

This discussion began on 1/20/2014.

"This MRB records posting reached a milestone of over 120,000 views on 3/31/2020, around 4:00 am."

"As of 04:00 am 1/2/2021, this discussion had 300,000 views!"

"And as of 08:30 pm 2/3/2021, this discussion had 330,000 views!"

"7:00 pm 10/8/2021 it had 520,000 views!"

1:40 am 3/2/2022 600,000 views

8:25 pm 5/4/2022 650,000 views

In the last seven months, this discussion has had as many visitors as it did in its first seven years!

1/20/2023 695,000 views in nine years. That's an average of 8.8 views/hour, or one view every 6.8 minutes.

1/15/2024 810,223 views in ten years. That's an average of 9.24 views/hour, or one view every 6.49 minutes.

WOW!!!!

I discovered a non-trivial infinitude of proper integrals that all equal the MRB constant (CMRB): ![enter image description here][1]

Maybe a few more restrictions, like a≠b.

See cloud notebook.

g[x_] = x^(1/x); CMRB = NSum[(-1)^k (g[k] - 1), {k, 1, Infinity}, 
     WorkingPrecision -> 100, Method -> "AlternatingSigns"];

In[239]:= g[x_] = x^(1/x); Table[w = (I (t - b))/(t - a);
 CMRB - NIntegrate[
   Re[g[(1 + w)] Csc[\[Pi] w]] (t - a)^-2*(b - a), {t, a, b}, 
      WorkingPrecision -> 100], {a, 0, 5}, {b, a + 1, 6}]

Out[239]= {{-9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94, \
-9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94}, {-9.3472*10^-94, \
-9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94}, \
{-9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94}, \
{-9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94}, {-9.3472*10^-94, \
-9.3472*10^-94}, {-9.3472*10^-94}}

In[240]:= g[x_] = x^(1/x); Table[w = (I (t - b))/(t - a);
 CMRB - NIntegrate[
   Re[g[(1 + w)] Csc[\[Pi] w]] (t - a)^-2*(b - a), {t, a, b}, 
      WorkingPrecision -> 100], {a, 4/10, 5}, {b, a + 1, 6}]

Out[240]= {{-9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94, \
-9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94}, {-9.4, -9.3472*10^-94, \
-9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94}, {-9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94, \
-9.3472*10^-94}, {-9.3472*10^-94, -9.3472*10^-94}, {-9.3472*10^-94}}

In[234]:= a = E; b = Pi;

In[254]:= a = E; b = Pi; g[x_] = x^(1/x); (w = (I (t - b))/(t - a);
 Print[CMRB - 
   NIntegrate[
    Re[g[(1 + w)] Csc[\[Pi] w]] (t - a)^-2*(b - a), {t, a, b}, 
    WorkingPrecision -> 100]]); Clear[a, b]

During evaluation of In[254]:= -9.3472*10^-94

In[260]:= a = 1; b = I; g[x_] = x^(1/x); (w = (I (t - b))/(t - a);
 Print[CMRB - 
   NIntegrate[
    Re[g[(1 + w)] Csc[\[Pi] w]] (t - a)^-2*(b - a), {t, a, b}, 
    WorkingPrecision -> 100]]); Clear[a, b]

During evaluation of In[260]:= -9.3472*10^-94+0.*10^-189 I

nice system!

I figured out how to rapidly compute AND CHECK a computation of the MRB constant! (The timing given is in processor time [for computing and checking] only. T0 can be used with another SessionTime[] call at the end to figure out all time expired during running of the program.) I used both of Crandall's methods for computing it and used for a check, the nontrivial identity ,where gamma is the Euler constant and M is the MRB constant.

Below is my first version of the code with results. If nothing else, I thought, the code pits Crandall's 2 methods against each other to show if one is wrong they both are wrong. These are two totally different methods! (the first of which has been proven by Henry Cohen to be theoretically correct here). For a second check mm is a known approximation to the constant; over 6 million checked digits are found in the attached file 3M.nb. (You will have to change the Format/Style to Input to use the digits.)

Download the following notebook and open in the Desktop:

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/bmmmburns/Published/Fast%20Burns%20check%20using%20Crandall.nb

02/12/2019

Using my 2 nodes of the MRB constant supercomputer (3.7 GH overclocked up to 4.7 GH, Intel 6core, 3000MH RAM,and 4 cores from my 3.6 GH, 2400MH RAM) I computed 34,517 digits of the MRB constant using Crandall's first eta formula:

prec = 35000;
to = SessionTime[];
etaMM[m_, pr_] := 
  Block[{a, s, k, b, c}, 
   a[j_] := (SetPrecision[Log[j + 1], prec]/(j + 1))^m;
   {b, c, s} = {-1, -d, 0};
   Do[c = b - c;
    s = s + c a[k];
    b = (k + n) (k - n) b/((k + 1) (k + 1/2)), {k, 0, n - 1}];
   Return[N[s/d, pr] (-1)^m]];
eta1 = N[EulerGamma Log[2] - Log[2]^2/2, prec]; n = 
 Floor[132/100 prec]; d = N[ChebyshevT[n, 3], prec];
MRBtest = 
  eta1 - Total[
    ParallelCombine[((Cos[Pi #]) etaMM[#, prec]/
         N[Gamma[# + 1], prec]) &, Range[2, Floor[.250 prec]], 
     Method -> "CoarsestGrained"]];
Print[N[MRBtest2 - MRBtest,10]];

SessionTime[] - to

giving -2.166803252*10^-34517 for a difference and 208659.2864422 seconds or 2.415 days for a timing.

Where MRBtest2 is 36000 digits computed through acceleration methods of n^(1/n)

3/28/2019

Here is an updated table of speed eta formula records:

04/03/2019

Using my 2 nodes of the MRB constant supercomputer (3.7 GH overclocked up to 4.7 GH, Intel 6core, 3000MH RAM,and 4 cores from my 3.6 GH, 2400MH RAM) I computed 50,000 digits of the MRB constant using Crandall's first eta formula in 5.79 days.

 prec = 50000;
to = SessionTime[];
etaMM[m_, pr_] := 
  Module[{a, s, k, b, c}, 
   a[j_] := 
    SetPrecision[SetPrecision[Log[j + 1]/(j + 1), prec]^m, prec];
   {b, c, s} = {-1, -d, 0};
   Do[c = b - c;
    s = s + c a[k];
    b = (k + n) (k - n) b/((k + 1) (k + 1/2)), {k, 0, n - 1}];
   Return[N[s/d, pr] (-1)^m]];
eta1 = N[EulerGamma Log[2] - Log[2]^2/2, prec]; n = 
 Floor[132/100 prec]; d = N[ChebyshevT[n, 3], prec];
MRBtest = 
  eta1 - Total[
    ParallelCombine[((Cos[Pi #]) etaMM[#, prec]/
         N[Gamma[# + 1], prec]) &, Range[2, Floor[.245 prec]], 
     Method -> "CoarsestGrained"]];
Print[N[MRBtest2 - MRBtest, 10]];

SessionTime[] - to

 (* 0.*10^-50000

  500808.4835750*)

Richard Crandall might of had some help in developing his method. He wrote one time:

"Marvin I am working on a highly efficient method for your constant, and I've been in touch with other mathematics scholars.

Please be patient...

rec

Sent from my iPhone."

Nice work. Worth a bit of excitement, I' d say.

I can't say I understand either. My guess is the Eta stuff comes from summing (-1)^k*(Log[k]/k)^n over k, as those are the terms that appear in the double sum you get from expanding k^(1/k)-1 in powers of Log[k]/k (use k^(1/k)=Exp[Log[k]/k] and the power series for Exp). Even if it does come from this the details remain elusive..