> Judging by publication date the source seems to be this paper (also it did not cite any other papers with the incorrect value, as far as I know). And everybody else just copied the constant from somewhere else, propagating it from paper to paper.
And the Scheuermann and Mauve paper mentions that they picked the value (0.775351) from the Philippe Flajolet paper that only mentions it without the extra 5. It's not that it was calculated again, reviewed or something like that. It was simple picked up and typed wrong.
And the Scheuermann and Mauve paper mentions that they picked the value (0.775351) from the Philippe Flajolet paper that only mentions it without the extra 5. It's not that it was calculated again, reviewed or something like that. It was simple picked up and typed wrong.