Difference between revisions of "Euler's number"
m (replaced lim with \lim in one place) |
ComplexZeta (talk | contribs) m |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | '''e''' is a [[mathematical constant]] that shows up in a wide variety of places. It has been shown to be both [[irrational]] and [[transcendental]]. Numerically, it is approximately equal to 2.71828. | + | '''e''' is a [[mathematical constant]] that shows up in a wide variety of places. It has been shown to be both [[irrational]] and [[transcendental number|transcendental]]. Numerically, it is approximately equal to 2.71828. |
== e and calculus == | == e and calculus == |
Revision as of 20:33, 24 June 2006
e is a mathematical constant that shows up in a wide variety of places. It has been shown to be both irrational and transcendental. Numerically, it is approximately equal to 2.71828.
e and calculus
e is defined as the following limit: .
In calculus, the fact that
is used often, based on the above definition and the Binomial Theorem.
Where
comes from
Suppose is a positive real number, and
for all real numbers
. Let's try to figure out what
is.
.
Now look what has happened. Something special has almost happened. We found the derivative of , and what we got was almost
. In other words, the derivative of this function is almost the same function that we started with. However, there is that annoying and kind of messy limit on the right that is messing things up.
It seems like it would be at least cool, if not downright useful, to have a function whose derivative is equal to itself. (In fact, it turns out that such a function is very useful indeed, for example in finding solutions to certain differential equations.) So let's ask this question: Is it possible to cleverly pick a special value of in order to make that annoying limit on the right turn out to be equal to
? If this were possible, then for that special value of
, it would in fact be true that the derivative of
is just
, exactly the same function we started with.
Well, the fact is that there is a special value of which accomplishes this goal. It is approximately
, and it is called
. ("
" stands for exponential and not Euler, despite the fact that Euler was one of the first mathematicians to use it and the one to name it.
is sometimes (perhaps incorrectly) called "Euler's number." However, Napier came close to discovering
(or, rather,
) before Euler did.)
So, how do we choose so that
? Could we pick
in some clever way to make this expression simplify? As a first rough idea, imagine what would happen to the expression
if
were equal to
. Everything cancels out nicely, and we are left with just
. This suggests that we should select
to be
. So here we have our definition of
. This limit is approximately
.
To make this rigorous, it should be possible to prove that this limit actually exists. And once we define to be this limit, it should be possible to prove that
.
(This definition of is equivalent to the one given at the beginning of this article. Just let
. Then
.)