What INC From N to M in Exactly S Steps?

[oldefoxx]

I like the idea that was proposed of 2 - 2 - 2.5 steps from $500 to $1,000,000 in 14 stages. I turned it around though, to put all the 2,5 steps first, then the doubling steps last. It just struck me that a player had a better chance at building up a nest egg to walk away with, and more to lose later when the top end was reached. Some would think the 2's should all come first, and you have the promise of a greater reward later as the big money is encountered.

But what I really wanted was a sliding scale, where you began by doubling or tripling a the bottom end and had the increase fall off a you moved up the laddet. I thought of going from 3 down to 2 in 14 steps, but that would not work at all. I knew I could vary berween 2.5 and 2 based on the 2 - 2 - 2.5 proposal, but what if more fractional steps were employed, say like from 2.5 to 1,5, but my mind was not keen enough to work it out in my head. So I turned to using Calc. I also tried to program it, but could not get a handle on the math involved to do it exponentially.

So I went back to Calc and decided to attack it linearly. Now the thing about a linear approach is that as it repeats, it compounds and becomes exponential in nature. I'm not real hip on math, but I think it's something like a Taylor series. Natural e can be calculated as a series such that

The value of e is also equal to 1/0! + 1/1! + 1/2! + 1/3! + 1/4! + 1/5! + 1/6! + 1/7! + ... (etc)

.

The problem is that while irrational numbers run to an infinite number of digits, calulators, and computers are limited to finite number sizes, so at some point, you cannot go further on these alone. Specialized software and huge storage systems and lots of time can mean calculating such numbers to millions or even billions of places, but there is no practical reason for doing so. If you want more digits, possibly as a way of testing your own efforts at writing a program to calculate e, here are a couple of links to help: https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResourc ... Math-e.htm
http://www.intmath.com/exponential-loga ... ting-e.php

Anyway, that's not my reason for this post. I wrote my own rational number program years back with a programmable calculator, and I intend to revive it at some point and rewrite it in PureBasic. I had done that a good while back using QuickBasic and PowerBasic, but I don't really use them any more. The program told me in 3 steps that the best approximation for PI to 6 places was 355/113. but they had taught me in school to use 22/7, which is not near as accurate. I also learned that an Alabama State Senator jad once introduced a bill to pass a law that would have made PI exactly 3.

Bi, my reason for this post is to share the results I put together for several ways that you can go from $500 to $1,000,000 in precisely 15 steps, and you decide what looks best to you. Then go sell the idea to the Millionaire producers for next season's show. Or come up with a better idea on your own. https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code ... A0pFURd6qk

Here is a list of the 1st 10,000 digits of natural e. Note that natural e is also the bases of the ln() and e^x functions: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/His ... 10000.html

[oldefoxx]

.
But, in running my code, it appears I got the Debug Output window screwed up the other night.
Trying to see the Debug Window in small size as part of my Debug effort, while walking my code, I got it to go down to a small size. Fine for then. But now I want it back full screen, and I don't know how I got it small to start with. Maybe someone can tell me how to do it.

I could not solve the riddle of the small Debug Output window for the longest time. I would think I had changed it, but it never carried through. I would remove PureBasic and reinstall it, and it persisted. I would delete the ,purebasic folder, and it would still behave the same way. I finally got it together this way:

(1) Every time I made a change in File/Preferences, I would hit the Apply button. Otherwise, if I went somewhere else under preferences, it would seem to revert before I concluded by pressing the OK button.

(2) The Debug Output window could be maximized, but the image of the Debug Window remained fixated at 300x300 pixels. Seems strange. What I finally did was maximize the Debug Window and dragged the edges of the small image in it to expand it to fill the whole thing. Odd behavior from my experience.