Line 125: Line 125:
 
Also, thanks to Josh for solving the "pert" problem, I had forgotten that the natural log of 1 was 0 and couldn't get past that point.--[[User:Jmason|Jmason]] 15:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 
Also, thanks to Josh for solving the "pert" problem, I had forgotten that the natural log of 1 was 0 and couldn't get past that point.--[[User:Jmason|Jmason]] 15:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  
*Good point John.  Unless you consider yourself to be investing continuously at a constant rate(so that you'd invest the initial amount each year).  However, I think that would probably look even uglier.  But then, maybe not.  I'd have to do some tinkering first.
+
*Good point John.  Unless you consider yourself to be investing continuously at a constant rate(so that you'd invest the initial amount each year).  However, I think that would probably look even uglier.  But then, maybe not.  I'd have to do some tinkering first.[[User:Jhunsber|Jhunsber]]

Revision as of 10:56, 3 October 2008

I'm not sure that your original function makes that much sense; I can't say that I can tell how you got to that point.

Just checking out how normal compounded interest works, I checked Wikipedia and rediscovered the formula:

$ A=P\bigg(1+\frac{r}{n}\bigg)^{nt} $

P = principal amount (initial investment)

r = annual nominal interest rate (as a decimal)

n = number of times the interest is compounded per year

t = number of years

A = amount after time t

I've tried to break that down into good 'ole

$ A=Pe^{rt} $

but haven't had any luck; I always end up with an indeterminate value relating one and infinity that I can't break down into something manageable with L'Hopital's.--Jmason 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • To Gary: Yeah, I have to agree with John, I'm not following your math here. Could you tell us how you got to that equation?

To John: The derivation is actually in our book, but I'll redo the work here to practice with Latex and so you can see it here instead of going to the book.

$ A=P\bigg(1+\frac{r}{n}\bigg)^{nt} $

Now we we want to find the limit as n goes to infinity, since we're trying to compound the interest continuously, and therefore have an infinite number of times we compound.

$ P\lim_{n\to\infty}\bigg(1+\frac{r}{n}\bigg)^{nt} $

We now have a limit in the indeterminate form $ 1^{\infty} $

Now I'm going to stray from what the book showed us and use L'H rule to show that the limit approaches $ Pe^{rt} $

First, drop the P, we can multiply it back in later. Also, since it's in form $ 1^{\infty} $ we can try to find its limit by taking the natural log of it and its limit (Which means when we find the new limit, we have to raise e to that power to get the right limit, as you already know.)

$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\ln{\bigg(1+\frac{r}{n}\bigg)^{nt}} $

Move the nt to the front

$ \lim_{n\to\infty}nt\ln{\bigg(1+\frac{r}{n}\bigg)} $

And move the nt to the bottom by inverting it

$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\ln{\bigg(1+\frac{r}{n}\bigg)}}{\frac{1}{nt}} $

Which is now in the indeterminate form $ \frac{0}{0} $ So apply L'H rule and find derivatives of top and bottom functions:

$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\frac{-r}{(1+\frac{r}{n})n^2}}{\frac{-1}{n^2t}} $

Now the $ -n^2 $ cancel and we can take the limit as n approaches infinity.


$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{rt}{1+\frac{r}{n}}=\frac{rt}{1}=rt $

Now take e to this power to get the actual limit.

$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\bigg(1+\frac{r}{n}\bigg)^{nt}=e^{rt} $

And now we simply add back in our constant to solve completely.

$ A=P\lim_{n\to\infty}\bigg(1+\frac{r}{n}\bigg)^{nt}=Pe^{rt} $ Jhunsber

What I am doing is calculating a sum where you initially invest an amount, and then you invest that same amount again next period. For instance, I invest $1000 in an IRA for year one. Year 2, I invest another $1000 on top that. Year 3, I invest another $1000.

It looks like this:

A= Amount Invested each period

p= period

r= annual percentage rate (in this case it is positive for an investment)

t= time in years

Period(1) = $ A(\frac{r}{p} +1) = \frac{Ar}{p} +A $

Period(2) = $ [Year(1)+A](\frac{r}{p} +1) = \frac{Ar^2}{p^2}+\frac{3Ar}{p} +2A $

Period(3) = ...... ---Gary Brizendine II

Notice...

i= r/p = periodic interest rate

P(1) = A(i+1)

P(2) = A(i+1)(i+2)

P(3) = A(i+1)(i^2+3i+3)

P(4) = A(i+1)(i^3+4i^2+4i+4)

so.....

$ P(t) = -(t-1)(\frac{r}{p})^{t-1} + At(\frac{r}{p}+1) \sum_{t=1}{N}(\frac{r}{p})^{t-1} $

I'll leave what I just put up there, but it is wrong. I noticed the coefficients inside the powers of 'i' parentheses. I assumed for the fourth period that they would be fours. I was wrong. I carried it through to five and noticed something interesting. It creates a pascal's triangle effect. The fourth is 1-4-6-4; the fifth is 1-5-10-10-5; the sixth is 1-6-15-20-15-6. This makes things a little more complicated. The equation I came up with on the main page without sums or integrals is correct. I got this by solving for a geometric series. I will try to solve for this new pascal configuration. --Gary Brizendine II

Wow!!!! Solving it like this actually gave me the exact formula I got using series. I guess that you can not use a summation here. For some reason, I thought you could because I got a sigma in there. What did I learn from this?: just because you have a sigma doesn't mean you can necessarily have an integral. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Formula:

$ Total = \frac{A[(i+1)^{t+1}-(i+1)]}{i} $

This can also be:

$ Total = \frac{A[(e)^{(t+1)\ln{(i+1)}}-(i+1)]}{i} $

This makes the exponential function:

$ Total = Ae^{(t+1)\ln{(i+1)}}-\frac{A(i+1)}{i} $

Thanks for the comments! --Gary Brizendine II

  • Wait, how did you get rid of the i under $ \frac{A[(e)^{(t+1)\ln{(i+1)}}-(i+1)]}{i} $? I see it under the second part, but not the first. Maybe I'm just not thinking of something.

Also, a house-keeping note. I moved the link to this page on the main page to interesting articles since this technically isn't part of homework.Jhunsber

It doesn't surprise me that you can't get an integral; the behavior that I *think* you are describing isn't continuous. So while you can definitely get a trend, it would look like some weird step function.

Also, thanks to Josh for solving the "pert" problem, I had forgotten that the natural log of 1 was 0 and couldn't get past that point.--Jmason 15:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Good point John. Unless you consider yourself to be investing continuously at a constant rate(so that you'd invest the initial amount each year). However, I think that would probably look even uglier. But then, maybe not. I'd have to do some tinkering first.Jhunsber

Alumni Liaison

Prof. Math. Ohio State and Associate Dean
Outstanding Alumnus Purdue Math 2008

Jeff McNeal