Possible definitions of exponential function
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
I was wondering how many definitions of exponential functions can we think of. The basic ones could be:
$$e^x:=sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{x^k}{k!}$$
also
$$e^x:=lim_{ntoinfty}bigg(1+frac{x}{n}bigg)^n$$
or this one:
Define $e^x:mathbb{R}rightarrowmathbb{R}\$ as unique function satisfying:
begin{align}
e^xgeq x+1\
forall x,yinmathbb{R}:e^{x+y}=e^xe^y
end{align}
Can anyone come up with something unusual? (Possibly with some explanation or references).
real-analysis definition big-list
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
I was wondering how many definitions of exponential functions can we think of. The basic ones could be:
$$e^x:=sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{x^k}{k!}$$
also
$$e^x:=lim_{ntoinfty}bigg(1+frac{x}{n}bigg)^n$$
or this one:
Define $e^x:mathbb{R}rightarrowmathbb{R}\$ as unique function satisfying:
begin{align}
e^xgeq x+1\
forall x,yinmathbb{R}:e^{x+y}=e^xe^y
end{align}
Can anyone come up with something unusual? (Possibly with some explanation or references).
real-analysis definition big-list
5
Related : math.stackexchange.com/questions/833962/…
– Arnaud D.
Nov 7 at 13:35
1
continued fraction: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– R zu
2 days ago
1
Your last definition is tricky and the existence of such a function is usually proved by showing that this this definition leads to other more suitable ones.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
1
I was not aware that your last one could actually used as a definition. And I am impressed because I have the habit of making my mathSE answers involving the exponential depend solely on these two properties!
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
2
@Aloizio I'm not sure Community Wiki was warranted here. If a question is valuable enough that you believe it belongs on the site, chances are you don’t need it to be community wiki! [...] Instead, strive for quality. If you’re unsure a certain question class belongs on the site, don’t tolerate the worst examples — demand that these questions be awesome. [...] questions rarely, if ever, need community wiki.
– user3641
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
up vote
30
down vote
favorite
I was wondering how many definitions of exponential functions can we think of. The basic ones could be:
$$e^x:=sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{x^k}{k!}$$
also
$$e^x:=lim_{ntoinfty}bigg(1+frac{x}{n}bigg)^n$$
or this one:
Define $e^x:mathbb{R}rightarrowmathbb{R}\$ as unique function satisfying:
begin{align}
e^xgeq x+1\
forall x,yinmathbb{R}:e^{x+y}=e^xe^y
end{align}
Can anyone come up with something unusual? (Possibly with some explanation or references).
real-analysis definition big-list
I was wondering how many definitions of exponential functions can we think of. The basic ones could be:
$$e^x:=sum_{k=0}^{infty}frac{x^k}{k!}$$
also
$$e^x:=lim_{ntoinfty}bigg(1+frac{x}{n}bigg)^n$$
or this one:
Define $e^x:mathbb{R}rightarrowmathbb{R}\$ as unique function satisfying:
begin{align}
e^xgeq x+1\
forall x,yinmathbb{R}:e^{x+y}=e^xe^y
end{align}
Can anyone come up with something unusual? (Possibly with some explanation or references).
real-analysis definition big-list
real-analysis definition big-list
edited Nov 7 at 13:25
community wiki
3 revs
Michal Dvořák
5
Related : math.stackexchange.com/questions/833962/…
– Arnaud D.
Nov 7 at 13:35
1
continued fraction: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– R zu
2 days ago
1
Your last definition is tricky and the existence of such a function is usually proved by showing that this this definition leads to other more suitable ones.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
1
I was not aware that your last one could actually used as a definition. And I am impressed because I have the habit of making my mathSE answers involving the exponential depend solely on these two properties!
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
2
@Aloizio I'm not sure Community Wiki was warranted here. If a question is valuable enough that you believe it belongs on the site, chances are you don’t need it to be community wiki! [...] Instead, strive for quality. If you’re unsure a certain question class belongs on the site, don’t tolerate the worst examples — demand that these questions be awesome. [...] questions rarely, if ever, need community wiki.
– user3641
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
5
Related : math.stackexchange.com/questions/833962/…
– Arnaud D.
Nov 7 at 13:35
1
continued fraction: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– R zu
2 days ago
1
Your last definition is tricky and the existence of such a function is usually proved by showing that this this definition leads to other more suitable ones.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
1
I was not aware that your last one could actually used as a definition. And I am impressed because I have the habit of making my mathSE answers involving the exponential depend solely on these two properties!
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
2
@Aloizio I'm not sure Community Wiki was warranted here. If a question is valuable enough that you believe it belongs on the site, chances are you don’t need it to be community wiki! [...] Instead, strive for quality. If you’re unsure a certain question class belongs on the site, don’t tolerate the worst examples — demand that these questions be awesome. [...] questions rarely, if ever, need community wiki.
– user3641
2 days ago
5
5
Related : math.stackexchange.com/questions/833962/…
– Arnaud D.
Nov 7 at 13:35
Related : math.stackexchange.com/questions/833962/…
– Arnaud D.
Nov 7 at 13:35
1
1
continued fraction: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– R zu
2 days ago
continued fraction: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– R zu
2 days ago
1
1
Your last definition is tricky and the existence of such a function is usually proved by showing that this this definition leads to other more suitable ones.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
Your last definition is tricky and the existence of such a function is usually proved by showing that this this definition leads to other more suitable ones.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
1
1
I was not aware that your last one could actually used as a definition. And I am impressed because I have the habit of making my mathSE answers involving the exponential depend solely on these two properties!
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
I was not aware that your last one could actually used as a definition. And I am impressed because I have the habit of making my mathSE answers involving the exponential depend solely on these two properties!
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
2
2
@Aloizio I'm not sure Community Wiki was warranted here. If a question is valuable enough that you believe it belongs on the site, chances are you don’t need it to be community wiki! [...] Instead, strive for quality. If you’re unsure a certain question class belongs on the site, don’t tolerate the worst examples — demand that these questions be awesome. [...] questions rarely, if ever, need community wiki.
– user3641
2 days ago
@Aloizio I'm not sure Community Wiki was warranted here. If a question is valuable enough that you believe it belongs on the site, chances are you don’t need it to be community wiki! [...] Instead, strive for quality. If you’re unsure a certain question class belongs on the site, don’t tolerate the worst examples — demand that these questions be awesome. [...] questions rarely, if ever, need community wiki.
– user3641
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
15 Answers
15
active
oldest
votes
up vote
45
down vote
The exponential function is the unique solution of the initial value problem
$y'(x)=y(x) , quad y(0)=1$.
add a comment |
up vote
25
down vote
We can also define $e^x$ as follows:
- the inverse function of $ln x$, defining $ln x$ independently as follows
$$ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$$
- the unique solution to IVP $f'(x)=f(x)$ with $f(0)=1$ which existence is guaranteed by Existence and Uniqueness” Theorems for first order IVP
2
Would an algebraic definition work, along the lines of: An exponential function is a homomorphism $exp colon (mathbb{R},+) rightarrow (mathbb{R},cdot)$? Thus, $exp(r_1+r_2) = exp(r_1) cdot exp(r_2)$ and $exp(0) = 1$
– j4nd3r53n
Nov 7 at 15:47
8
And a good candidate for the definition of $ln x$ would be $ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 17:28
@DanielSchepler Thanks good point! That's commenti will be useful to the asker and future readers.
– gimusi
Nov 7 at 18:19
1
@j4nd3r53n It's not sufficient without an additional assumption such as the function being continuous at some point, or bounded on some interval, etc. See the comment below Paul Evans's answer.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 18:23
@j4nd3r53n: that property is also shared by $a^x$. A careful analysis of the functional equation $f(x+y) =f(x) f(y) $ easentially leads to exponential function, but existence of such a function requires recourse to more traditional definitions.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
11
down vote
Define the value at rationals via powers and roots and then show that there is a unique continuous function which agrees with these values.
First define it for the natural numbers:
Define $e^2 = e times e$, $e^3 = e times e times e $, etc.
Now define it for other integers:
$e^0 = 1$, $e^{-n} = frac{1}{e^n}$, etc.
Now for other rational numbers (getting a bit harder):
$e^{frac{p}{q}} = sqrt[q]{e^p}$
Finally for irrational numbers $x$, you will need to prove that this definition evaluated for any sequence of rational numbers which converge to $x$ has a limit and that it is the same for all sequences which converge to $x$.
This is hard, especially the last step, but I think that it fits a common naive idea of what exponentiation is. We usually learn it in this sequence.
1
Can you elaborate your answer with something concrete?
– Michal Dvořák
Nov 7 at 13:28
I expanded my answer.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 13:39
1
Good question. Either just right it down e.g. $e = 2.71828 . . .$ or use one of your first two definitions with $x = 1$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 15:43
3
You might just define $x^y$ at this point.
– Ori Gurel-Gurevich
Nov 7 at 16:04
1
True. My approach is probably more likely if you are trying to define exponentiation and you have not encountered $e$ yet. In that case, you probably won't be able to do the last stage very formally and will just assume it as obvious. I did not express it that way as the OP wanted definitions of $e^x$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 16:31
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
Throw $n$ balls into $n$ bins uniformly at random, and take $n to infty$. Define $frac{1}{e}$ to be the limiting fraction of empty bins.
A vehicle moves from point $A$ to $B$ with speed always equal to the remaining distance to $B$. Define $1-frac{1}{e}$ to be the fraction of distance covered after one unit of time.
Given positive $x$, consider a set of independent Bernoulli random variables with $sum_{i=1}^n p_i = x$. As $n to infty$ and $max_i p_i to 0$, define $e^{-x}$ to be the probability that all are zero.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
If you've defined $a^b$, then you can take any sequence with a limit involving $e$ and define $e^x$ in terms of that. For instance, $e^x=lim_{nrightarrow infty}left[frac{n!}{n^nsqrt{(2n+frac13pi}}right]^{frac xn}$
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
You can also define the exponential function like this:
$$
e^x = lim_{ntoinfty} frac{f_n(x)}{f_n(-x)}
$$
where
$$
f_n(x) = sum_{j=0}^n frac{(2n-j)!}{j!(n-j)!}x^j
$$
3
I have never seen this one, and it's interesting, could you please relate this somehow to the usual definitions?
– Michal Dvořák
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Let $D_n$ be the number of permutations of $[n]$ without fixed points (i.e. derangements). Define
$$
frac{1}{e}=lim_{ntoinfty}frac{D_n}{n!}.
$$
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
EDIT: thanks to @HagenvonEitzen's comment.
I've often wondered if the following is sufficient for a general power function:
$$f(x+y) = f(x)f(y)$$
And then:
$$f(1) = e$$
for the base.
Think this is probably similar to @badjohn's answer.
EDIT: thanks to @CarstenS and @R
Turns out we must also demand that $f(x)$ is continuous or measurable.
6
Not without also demanding continuity. Take any additive $T$ with $T(1)=1$ and set $f(x) = exp(T(x))$.
– Carsten S
Nov 7 at 16:44
1
@CarstenS: You can get by with weaker conditions than continuity. For example, measurability suffices (and, with additivity, of course implies continuity).
– R..
Nov 8 at 2:28
2
@R.., yes I should have written "not without additional conditions".
– Carsten S
2 days ago
2
$f(-x)=frac1{f(x)}$ is redundant as it follows from the first and the fact that $f$ is not identically zero
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
$e^x := cos(-ix) + i sin(-ix)$
(See Euler's formula)
New contributor
Is it possible to define the sine and cosine of a complex number without using exponential?
– Surb
Nov 7 at 23:08
That's a good question! It seems like Euler's formula would be meaningless if it were not possible to define sin and cos for imaginary numbers. Perhaps the Taylor Series would make sufficient definitions?
– Ben Jones
Nov 7 at 23:47
7
Sine and cosine can be defined by the corresponding power series. But this seems a bit like running in circles...
– weee
Nov 7 at 23:48
3
So we keep running in circles and going "@weee..."? =)
– user21820
2 days ago
5
@weee Where else would one run when dealing with sin and cos? :)
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
Similar to above. It pops up in applying Euler's Method for solving differential equations numerically:
Suppose we have $frac{dy}{dx}=ky.$ And we have $y(0)=1$.
By Euler's Method:
Pick some small $Delta x$. Then Let:
$$x_{n+1}=x_n+Delta x$$
$$y_{n+1}=y_n+frac{dy}{dx}Delta x=y_n+(ky_n)Delta x$$
With some rearranging:
$$y_{n+1}=y_n(1+kDelta x)implies y_{n+p}=y_n(1+kDelta x)^p$$
$$x_{n+p}=x_n+pDelta x $$
Now we have that $x_0$=0 and $y_0=1$. So:
$$x_{n+p}=(0)+pDelta x$$
$$y_{n+p}=(1)(1+kDelta x)^p$$
Suppose we know we want our last value of $x$ to b $z$ and we want $p$ steps. Then we want $Delta x$ to be $z/p$.
Then letting $n=0$,
$$y_p=(1+kfrac{z}{p})^p$$
By the limite mentioned above, $y_p$ gets closer and closer to $e^{kz}$ as $p$ goes to infinity.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$f(x) = e^x > 0$ is such a function that
$$ intlimits_{1}^{f(x)} tfrac{1}{u} , mathrm{d}u = x$$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The exponential function is the unique smooth group isomorphism from the additive group of reals to the multiplicative group of positive reals whose derivative at zero is one.
It is the Lie group exponential map of the latter group.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Definition of $e$:
$$lim_{hrightarrow 0} frac{e^h - 1}{h} = 1.$$
Define exponents as a supremum of a set of a real number to rational powers.
2
This needs a bit more elaboration as to how you define arbitrary real exponents.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
4
Also, this seems to define $e$ but not $xmapsto e^x$
– Surb
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Similar things have been said, but not in that way:
$exp$ is the only fixed point $f$ of the derivative (seen as function $D: C^{k+1}(mathbb R) to C^{k}(mathbb R)$ for some $k in [0,infty]$, or between some other convenient spaces) which satisfies the normalization $f(0)=1$. (The set of all these fixed points is the one-dimensional eigenspace of $D$ for eigenvalue 1, and ${exp}$ is a somewhat "canonical" basis for that space.)
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If we equip the one-dimensional manifold $(0,infty)$ with the Riemannian metric $dx^2/x^2$, then the Riemannian exponential map at the point $1$ is the usual exponential function.
This is the unique metric that makes the exponential function an exponential map.
add a comment |
protected by Aloizio Macedo♦ 2 days ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
15 Answers
15
active
oldest
votes
15 Answers
15
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
45
down vote
The exponential function is the unique solution of the initial value problem
$y'(x)=y(x) , quad y(0)=1$.
add a comment |
up vote
45
down vote
The exponential function is the unique solution of the initial value problem
$y'(x)=y(x) , quad y(0)=1$.
add a comment |
up vote
45
down vote
up vote
45
down vote
The exponential function is the unique solution of the initial value problem
$y'(x)=y(x) , quad y(0)=1$.
The exponential function is the unique solution of the initial value problem
$y'(x)=y(x) , quad y(0)=1$.
answered Nov 7 at 13:24
Fred
41.2k1641
41.2k1641
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
25
down vote
We can also define $e^x$ as follows:
- the inverse function of $ln x$, defining $ln x$ independently as follows
$$ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$$
- the unique solution to IVP $f'(x)=f(x)$ with $f(0)=1$ which existence is guaranteed by Existence and Uniqueness” Theorems for first order IVP
2
Would an algebraic definition work, along the lines of: An exponential function is a homomorphism $exp colon (mathbb{R},+) rightarrow (mathbb{R},cdot)$? Thus, $exp(r_1+r_2) = exp(r_1) cdot exp(r_2)$ and $exp(0) = 1$
– j4nd3r53n
Nov 7 at 15:47
8
And a good candidate for the definition of $ln x$ would be $ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 17:28
@DanielSchepler Thanks good point! That's commenti will be useful to the asker and future readers.
– gimusi
Nov 7 at 18:19
1
@j4nd3r53n It's not sufficient without an additional assumption such as the function being continuous at some point, or bounded on some interval, etc. See the comment below Paul Evans's answer.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 18:23
@j4nd3r53n: that property is also shared by $a^x$. A careful analysis of the functional equation $f(x+y) =f(x) f(y) $ easentially leads to exponential function, but existence of such a function requires recourse to more traditional definitions.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
25
down vote
We can also define $e^x$ as follows:
- the inverse function of $ln x$, defining $ln x$ independently as follows
$$ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$$
- the unique solution to IVP $f'(x)=f(x)$ with $f(0)=1$ which existence is guaranteed by Existence and Uniqueness” Theorems for first order IVP
2
Would an algebraic definition work, along the lines of: An exponential function is a homomorphism $exp colon (mathbb{R},+) rightarrow (mathbb{R},cdot)$? Thus, $exp(r_1+r_2) = exp(r_1) cdot exp(r_2)$ and $exp(0) = 1$
– j4nd3r53n
Nov 7 at 15:47
8
And a good candidate for the definition of $ln x$ would be $ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 17:28
@DanielSchepler Thanks good point! That's commenti will be useful to the asker and future readers.
– gimusi
Nov 7 at 18:19
1
@j4nd3r53n It's not sufficient without an additional assumption such as the function being continuous at some point, or bounded on some interval, etc. See the comment below Paul Evans's answer.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 18:23
@j4nd3r53n: that property is also shared by $a^x$. A careful analysis of the functional equation $f(x+y) =f(x) f(y) $ easentially leads to exponential function, but existence of such a function requires recourse to more traditional definitions.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
25
down vote
up vote
25
down vote
We can also define $e^x$ as follows:
- the inverse function of $ln x$, defining $ln x$ independently as follows
$$ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$$
- the unique solution to IVP $f'(x)=f(x)$ with $f(0)=1$ which existence is guaranteed by Existence and Uniqueness” Theorems for first order IVP
We can also define $e^x$ as follows:
- the inverse function of $ln x$, defining $ln x$ independently as follows
$$ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$$
- the unique solution to IVP $f'(x)=f(x)$ with $f(0)=1$ which existence is guaranteed by Existence and Uniqueness” Theorems for first order IVP
edited 2 days ago
answered Nov 7 at 13:24
gimusi
83.2k74292
83.2k74292
2
Would an algebraic definition work, along the lines of: An exponential function is a homomorphism $exp colon (mathbb{R},+) rightarrow (mathbb{R},cdot)$? Thus, $exp(r_1+r_2) = exp(r_1) cdot exp(r_2)$ and $exp(0) = 1$
– j4nd3r53n
Nov 7 at 15:47
8
And a good candidate for the definition of $ln x$ would be $ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 17:28
@DanielSchepler Thanks good point! That's commenti will be useful to the asker and future readers.
– gimusi
Nov 7 at 18:19
1
@j4nd3r53n It's not sufficient without an additional assumption such as the function being continuous at some point, or bounded on some interval, etc. See the comment below Paul Evans's answer.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 18:23
@j4nd3r53n: that property is also shared by $a^x$. A careful analysis of the functional equation $f(x+y) =f(x) f(y) $ easentially leads to exponential function, but existence of such a function requires recourse to more traditional definitions.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
Would an algebraic definition work, along the lines of: An exponential function is a homomorphism $exp colon (mathbb{R},+) rightarrow (mathbb{R},cdot)$? Thus, $exp(r_1+r_2) = exp(r_1) cdot exp(r_2)$ and $exp(0) = 1$
– j4nd3r53n
Nov 7 at 15:47
8
And a good candidate for the definition of $ln x$ would be $ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 17:28
@DanielSchepler Thanks good point! That's commenti will be useful to the asker and future readers.
– gimusi
Nov 7 at 18:19
1
@j4nd3r53n It's not sufficient without an additional assumption such as the function being continuous at some point, or bounded on some interval, etc. See the comment below Paul Evans's answer.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 18:23
@j4nd3r53n: that property is also shared by $a^x$. A careful analysis of the functional equation $f(x+y) =f(x) f(y) $ easentially leads to exponential function, but existence of such a function requires recourse to more traditional definitions.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
2
2
Would an algebraic definition work, along the lines of: An exponential function is a homomorphism $exp colon (mathbb{R},+) rightarrow (mathbb{R},cdot)$? Thus, $exp(r_1+r_2) = exp(r_1) cdot exp(r_2)$ and $exp(0) = 1$
– j4nd3r53n
Nov 7 at 15:47
Would an algebraic definition work, along the lines of: An exponential function is a homomorphism $exp colon (mathbb{R},+) rightarrow (mathbb{R},cdot)$? Thus, $exp(r_1+r_2) = exp(r_1) cdot exp(r_2)$ and $exp(0) = 1$
– j4nd3r53n
Nov 7 at 15:47
8
8
And a good candidate for the definition of $ln x$ would be $ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 17:28
And a good candidate for the definition of $ln x$ would be $ln x := int_1^x frac{dt}{t}$.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 17:28
@DanielSchepler Thanks good point! That's commenti will be useful to the asker and future readers.
– gimusi
Nov 7 at 18:19
@DanielSchepler Thanks good point! That's commenti will be useful to the asker and future readers.
– gimusi
Nov 7 at 18:19
1
1
@j4nd3r53n It's not sufficient without an additional assumption such as the function being continuous at some point, or bounded on some interval, etc. See the comment below Paul Evans's answer.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 18:23
@j4nd3r53n It's not sufficient without an additional assumption such as the function being continuous at some point, or bounded on some interval, etc. See the comment below Paul Evans's answer.
– Daniel Schepler
Nov 7 at 18:23
@j4nd3r53n: that property is also shared by $a^x$. A careful analysis of the functional equation $f(x+y) =f(x) f(y) $ easentially leads to exponential function, but existence of such a function requires recourse to more traditional definitions.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
@j4nd3r53n: that property is also shared by $a^x$. A careful analysis of the functional equation $f(x+y) =f(x) f(y) $ easentially leads to exponential function, but existence of such a function requires recourse to more traditional definitions.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
11
down vote
Define the value at rationals via powers and roots and then show that there is a unique continuous function which agrees with these values.
First define it for the natural numbers:
Define $e^2 = e times e$, $e^3 = e times e times e $, etc.
Now define it for other integers:
$e^0 = 1$, $e^{-n} = frac{1}{e^n}$, etc.
Now for other rational numbers (getting a bit harder):
$e^{frac{p}{q}} = sqrt[q]{e^p}$
Finally for irrational numbers $x$, you will need to prove that this definition evaluated for any sequence of rational numbers which converge to $x$ has a limit and that it is the same for all sequences which converge to $x$.
This is hard, especially the last step, but I think that it fits a common naive idea of what exponentiation is. We usually learn it in this sequence.
1
Can you elaborate your answer with something concrete?
– Michal Dvořák
Nov 7 at 13:28
I expanded my answer.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 13:39
1
Good question. Either just right it down e.g. $e = 2.71828 . . .$ or use one of your first two definitions with $x = 1$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 15:43
3
You might just define $x^y$ at this point.
– Ori Gurel-Gurevich
Nov 7 at 16:04
1
True. My approach is probably more likely if you are trying to define exponentiation and you have not encountered $e$ yet. In that case, you probably won't be able to do the last stage very formally and will just assume it as obvious. I did not express it that way as the OP wanted definitions of $e^x$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 16:31
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
Define the value at rationals via powers and roots and then show that there is a unique continuous function which agrees with these values.
First define it for the natural numbers:
Define $e^2 = e times e$, $e^3 = e times e times e $, etc.
Now define it for other integers:
$e^0 = 1$, $e^{-n} = frac{1}{e^n}$, etc.
Now for other rational numbers (getting a bit harder):
$e^{frac{p}{q}} = sqrt[q]{e^p}$
Finally for irrational numbers $x$, you will need to prove that this definition evaluated for any sequence of rational numbers which converge to $x$ has a limit and that it is the same for all sequences which converge to $x$.
This is hard, especially the last step, but I think that it fits a common naive idea of what exponentiation is. We usually learn it in this sequence.
1
Can you elaborate your answer with something concrete?
– Michal Dvořák
Nov 7 at 13:28
I expanded my answer.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 13:39
1
Good question. Either just right it down e.g. $e = 2.71828 . . .$ or use one of your first two definitions with $x = 1$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 15:43
3
You might just define $x^y$ at this point.
– Ori Gurel-Gurevich
Nov 7 at 16:04
1
True. My approach is probably more likely if you are trying to define exponentiation and you have not encountered $e$ yet. In that case, you probably won't be able to do the last stage very formally and will just assume it as obvious. I did not express it that way as the OP wanted definitions of $e^x$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 16:31
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
Define the value at rationals via powers and roots and then show that there is a unique continuous function which agrees with these values.
First define it for the natural numbers:
Define $e^2 = e times e$, $e^3 = e times e times e $, etc.
Now define it for other integers:
$e^0 = 1$, $e^{-n} = frac{1}{e^n}$, etc.
Now for other rational numbers (getting a bit harder):
$e^{frac{p}{q}} = sqrt[q]{e^p}$
Finally for irrational numbers $x$, you will need to prove that this definition evaluated for any sequence of rational numbers which converge to $x$ has a limit and that it is the same for all sequences which converge to $x$.
This is hard, especially the last step, but I think that it fits a common naive idea of what exponentiation is. We usually learn it in this sequence.
Define the value at rationals via powers and roots and then show that there is a unique continuous function which agrees with these values.
First define it for the natural numbers:
Define $e^2 = e times e$, $e^3 = e times e times e $, etc.
Now define it for other integers:
$e^0 = 1$, $e^{-n} = frac{1}{e^n}$, etc.
Now for other rational numbers (getting a bit harder):
$e^{frac{p}{q}} = sqrt[q]{e^p}$
Finally for irrational numbers $x$, you will need to prove that this definition evaluated for any sequence of rational numbers which converge to $x$ has a limit and that it is the same for all sequences which converge to $x$.
This is hard, especially the last step, but I think that it fits a common naive idea of what exponentiation is. We usually learn it in this sequence.
edited Nov 7 at 13:39
answered Nov 7 at 13:27
badjohn
3,8341619
3,8341619
1
Can you elaborate your answer with something concrete?
– Michal Dvořák
Nov 7 at 13:28
I expanded my answer.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 13:39
1
Good question. Either just right it down e.g. $e = 2.71828 . . .$ or use one of your first two definitions with $x = 1$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 15:43
3
You might just define $x^y$ at this point.
– Ori Gurel-Gurevich
Nov 7 at 16:04
1
True. My approach is probably more likely if you are trying to define exponentiation and you have not encountered $e$ yet. In that case, you probably won't be able to do the last stage very formally and will just assume it as obvious. I did not express it that way as the OP wanted definitions of $e^x$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 16:31
|
show 5 more comments
1
Can you elaborate your answer with something concrete?
– Michal Dvořák
Nov 7 at 13:28
I expanded my answer.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 13:39
1
Good question. Either just right it down e.g. $e = 2.71828 . . .$ or use one of your first two definitions with $x = 1$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 15:43
3
You might just define $x^y$ at this point.
– Ori Gurel-Gurevich
Nov 7 at 16:04
1
True. My approach is probably more likely if you are trying to define exponentiation and you have not encountered $e$ yet. In that case, you probably won't be able to do the last stage very formally and will just assume it as obvious. I did not express it that way as the OP wanted definitions of $e^x$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 16:31
1
1
Can you elaborate your answer with something concrete?
– Michal Dvořák
Nov 7 at 13:28
Can you elaborate your answer with something concrete?
– Michal Dvořák
Nov 7 at 13:28
I expanded my answer.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 13:39
I expanded my answer.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 13:39
1
1
Good question. Either just right it down e.g. $e = 2.71828 . . .$ or use one of your first two definitions with $x = 1$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 15:43
Good question. Either just right it down e.g. $e = 2.71828 . . .$ or use one of your first two definitions with $x = 1$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 15:43
3
3
You might just define $x^y$ at this point.
– Ori Gurel-Gurevich
Nov 7 at 16:04
You might just define $x^y$ at this point.
– Ori Gurel-Gurevich
Nov 7 at 16:04
1
1
True. My approach is probably more likely if you are trying to define exponentiation and you have not encountered $e$ yet. In that case, you probably won't be able to do the last stage very formally and will just assume it as obvious. I did not express it that way as the OP wanted definitions of $e^x$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 16:31
True. My approach is probably more likely if you are trying to define exponentiation and you have not encountered $e$ yet. In that case, you probably won't be able to do the last stage very formally and will just assume it as obvious. I did not express it that way as the OP wanted definitions of $e^x$.
– badjohn
Nov 7 at 16:31
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
Throw $n$ balls into $n$ bins uniformly at random, and take $n to infty$. Define $frac{1}{e}$ to be the limiting fraction of empty bins.
A vehicle moves from point $A$ to $B$ with speed always equal to the remaining distance to $B$. Define $1-frac{1}{e}$ to be the fraction of distance covered after one unit of time.
Given positive $x$, consider a set of independent Bernoulli random variables with $sum_{i=1}^n p_i = x$. As $n to infty$ and $max_i p_i to 0$, define $e^{-x}$ to be the probability that all are zero.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Throw $n$ balls into $n$ bins uniformly at random, and take $n to infty$. Define $frac{1}{e}$ to be the limiting fraction of empty bins.
A vehicle moves from point $A$ to $B$ with speed always equal to the remaining distance to $B$. Define $1-frac{1}{e}$ to be the fraction of distance covered after one unit of time.
Given positive $x$, consider a set of independent Bernoulli random variables with $sum_{i=1}^n p_i = x$. As $n to infty$ and $max_i p_i to 0$, define $e^{-x}$ to be the probability that all are zero.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Throw $n$ balls into $n$ bins uniformly at random, and take $n to infty$. Define $frac{1}{e}$ to be the limiting fraction of empty bins.
A vehicle moves from point $A$ to $B$ with speed always equal to the remaining distance to $B$. Define $1-frac{1}{e}$ to be the fraction of distance covered after one unit of time.
Given positive $x$, consider a set of independent Bernoulli random variables with $sum_{i=1}^n p_i = x$. As $n to infty$ and $max_i p_i to 0$, define $e^{-x}$ to be the probability that all are zero.
Throw $n$ balls into $n$ bins uniformly at random, and take $n to infty$. Define $frac{1}{e}$ to be the limiting fraction of empty bins.
A vehicle moves from point $A$ to $B$ with speed always equal to the remaining distance to $B$. Define $1-frac{1}{e}$ to be the fraction of distance covered after one unit of time.
Given positive $x$, consider a set of independent Bernoulli random variables with $sum_{i=1}^n p_i = x$. As $n to infty$ and $max_i p_i to 0$, define $e^{-x}$ to be the probability that all are zero.
answered 2 days ago
usul
1,5131421
1,5131421
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
If you've defined $a^b$, then you can take any sequence with a limit involving $e$ and define $e^x$ in terms of that. For instance, $e^x=lim_{nrightarrow infty}left[frac{n!}{n^nsqrt{(2n+frac13pi}}right]^{frac xn}$
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
If you've defined $a^b$, then you can take any sequence with a limit involving $e$ and define $e^x$ in terms of that. For instance, $e^x=lim_{nrightarrow infty}left[frac{n!}{n^nsqrt{(2n+frac13pi}}right]^{frac xn}$
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
If you've defined $a^b$, then you can take any sequence with a limit involving $e$ and define $e^x$ in terms of that. For instance, $e^x=lim_{nrightarrow infty}left[frac{n!}{n^nsqrt{(2n+frac13pi}}right]^{frac xn}$
If you've defined $a^b$, then you can take any sequence with a limit involving $e$ and define $e^x$ in terms of that. For instance, $e^x=lim_{nrightarrow infty}left[frac{n!}{n^nsqrt{(2n+frac13pi}}right]^{frac xn}$
edited Nov 7 at 22:31
answered Nov 7 at 22:04
Acccumulation
6,4022616
6,4022616
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
You can also define the exponential function like this:
$$
e^x = lim_{ntoinfty} frac{f_n(x)}{f_n(-x)}
$$
where
$$
f_n(x) = sum_{j=0}^n frac{(2n-j)!}{j!(n-j)!}x^j
$$
3
I have never seen this one, and it's interesting, could you please relate this somehow to the usual definitions?
– Michal Dvořák
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
You can also define the exponential function like this:
$$
e^x = lim_{ntoinfty} frac{f_n(x)}{f_n(-x)}
$$
where
$$
f_n(x) = sum_{j=0}^n frac{(2n-j)!}{j!(n-j)!}x^j
$$
3
I have never seen this one, and it's interesting, could you please relate this somehow to the usual definitions?
– Michal Dvořák
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
You can also define the exponential function like this:
$$
e^x = lim_{ntoinfty} frac{f_n(x)}{f_n(-x)}
$$
where
$$
f_n(x) = sum_{j=0}^n frac{(2n-j)!}{j!(n-j)!}x^j
$$
You can also define the exponential function like this:
$$
e^x = lim_{ntoinfty} frac{f_n(x)}{f_n(-x)}
$$
where
$$
f_n(x) = sum_{j=0}^n frac{(2n-j)!}{j!(n-j)!}x^j
$$
edited 2 days ago
Dominique
29627
29627
answered 2 days ago
Glen O
8,8481528
8,8481528
3
I have never seen this one, and it's interesting, could you please relate this somehow to the usual definitions?
– Michal Dvořák
2 days ago
add a comment |
3
I have never seen this one, and it's interesting, could you please relate this somehow to the usual definitions?
– Michal Dvořák
2 days ago
3
3
I have never seen this one, and it's interesting, could you please relate this somehow to the usual definitions?
– Michal Dvořák
2 days ago
I have never seen this one, and it's interesting, could you please relate this somehow to the usual definitions?
– Michal Dvořák
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Let $D_n$ be the number of permutations of $[n]$ without fixed points (i.e. derangements). Define
$$
frac{1}{e}=lim_{ntoinfty}frac{D_n}{n!}.
$$
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Let $D_n$ be the number of permutations of $[n]$ without fixed points (i.e. derangements). Define
$$
frac{1}{e}=lim_{ntoinfty}frac{D_n}{n!}.
$$
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Let $D_n$ be the number of permutations of $[n]$ without fixed points (i.e. derangements). Define
$$
frac{1}{e}=lim_{ntoinfty}frac{D_n}{n!}.
$$
Let $D_n$ be the number of permutations of $[n]$ without fixed points (i.e. derangements). Define
$$
frac{1}{e}=lim_{ntoinfty}frac{D_n}{n!}.
$$
answered 2 days ago
community wiki
Foobaz John
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
EDIT: thanks to @HagenvonEitzen's comment.
I've often wondered if the following is sufficient for a general power function:
$$f(x+y) = f(x)f(y)$$
And then:
$$f(1) = e$$
for the base.
Think this is probably similar to @badjohn's answer.
EDIT: thanks to @CarstenS and @R
Turns out we must also demand that $f(x)$ is continuous or measurable.
6
Not without also demanding continuity. Take any additive $T$ with $T(1)=1$ and set $f(x) = exp(T(x))$.
– Carsten S
Nov 7 at 16:44
1
@CarstenS: You can get by with weaker conditions than continuity. For example, measurability suffices (and, with additivity, of course implies continuity).
– R..
Nov 8 at 2:28
2
@R.., yes I should have written "not without additional conditions".
– Carsten S
2 days ago
2
$f(-x)=frac1{f(x)}$ is redundant as it follows from the first and the fact that $f$ is not identically zero
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
EDIT: thanks to @HagenvonEitzen's comment.
I've often wondered if the following is sufficient for a general power function:
$$f(x+y) = f(x)f(y)$$
And then:
$$f(1) = e$$
for the base.
Think this is probably similar to @badjohn's answer.
EDIT: thanks to @CarstenS and @R
Turns out we must also demand that $f(x)$ is continuous or measurable.
6
Not without also demanding continuity. Take any additive $T$ with $T(1)=1$ and set $f(x) = exp(T(x))$.
– Carsten S
Nov 7 at 16:44
1
@CarstenS: You can get by with weaker conditions than continuity. For example, measurability suffices (and, with additivity, of course implies continuity).
– R..
Nov 8 at 2:28
2
@R.., yes I should have written "not without additional conditions".
– Carsten S
2 days ago
2
$f(-x)=frac1{f(x)}$ is redundant as it follows from the first and the fact that $f$ is not identically zero
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
EDIT: thanks to @HagenvonEitzen's comment.
I've often wondered if the following is sufficient for a general power function:
$$f(x+y) = f(x)f(y)$$
And then:
$$f(1) = e$$
for the base.
Think this is probably similar to @badjohn's answer.
EDIT: thanks to @CarstenS and @R
Turns out we must also demand that $f(x)$ is continuous or measurable.
EDIT: thanks to @HagenvonEitzen's comment.
I've often wondered if the following is sufficient for a general power function:
$$f(x+y) = f(x)f(y)$$
And then:
$$f(1) = e$$
for the base.
Think this is probably similar to @badjohn's answer.
EDIT: thanks to @CarstenS and @R
Turns out we must also demand that $f(x)$ is continuous or measurable.
edited 8 hours ago
answered Nov 7 at 15:37
Paul Evans
23137
23137
6
Not without also demanding continuity. Take any additive $T$ with $T(1)=1$ and set $f(x) = exp(T(x))$.
– Carsten S
Nov 7 at 16:44
1
@CarstenS: You can get by with weaker conditions than continuity. For example, measurability suffices (and, with additivity, of course implies continuity).
– R..
Nov 8 at 2:28
2
@R.., yes I should have written "not without additional conditions".
– Carsten S
2 days ago
2
$f(-x)=frac1{f(x)}$ is redundant as it follows from the first and the fact that $f$ is not identically zero
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
add a comment |
6
Not without also demanding continuity. Take any additive $T$ with $T(1)=1$ and set $f(x) = exp(T(x))$.
– Carsten S
Nov 7 at 16:44
1
@CarstenS: You can get by with weaker conditions than continuity. For example, measurability suffices (and, with additivity, of course implies continuity).
– R..
Nov 8 at 2:28
2
@R.., yes I should have written "not without additional conditions".
– Carsten S
2 days ago
2
$f(-x)=frac1{f(x)}$ is redundant as it follows from the first and the fact that $f$ is not identically zero
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
6
6
Not without also demanding continuity. Take any additive $T$ with $T(1)=1$ and set $f(x) = exp(T(x))$.
– Carsten S
Nov 7 at 16:44
Not without also demanding continuity. Take any additive $T$ with $T(1)=1$ and set $f(x) = exp(T(x))$.
– Carsten S
Nov 7 at 16:44
1
1
@CarstenS: You can get by with weaker conditions than continuity. For example, measurability suffices (and, with additivity, of course implies continuity).
– R..
Nov 8 at 2:28
@CarstenS: You can get by with weaker conditions than continuity. For example, measurability suffices (and, with additivity, of course implies continuity).
– R..
Nov 8 at 2:28
2
2
@R.., yes I should have written "not without additional conditions".
– Carsten S
2 days ago
@R.., yes I should have written "not without additional conditions".
– Carsten S
2 days ago
2
2
$f(-x)=frac1{f(x)}$ is redundant as it follows from the first and the fact that $f$ is not identically zero
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
$f(-x)=frac1{f(x)}$ is redundant as it follows from the first and the fact that $f$ is not identically zero
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
$e^x := cos(-ix) + i sin(-ix)$
(See Euler's formula)
New contributor
Is it possible to define the sine and cosine of a complex number without using exponential?
– Surb
Nov 7 at 23:08
That's a good question! It seems like Euler's formula would be meaningless if it were not possible to define sin and cos for imaginary numbers. Perhaps the Taylor Series would make sufficient definitions?
– Ben Jones
Nov 7 at 23:47
7
Sine and cosine can be defined by the corresponding power series. But this seems a bit like running in circles...
– weee
Nov 7 at 23:48
3
So we keep running in circles and going "@weee..."? =)
– user21820
2 days ago
5
@weee Where else would one run when dealing with sin and cos? :)
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
$e^x := cos(-ix) + i sin(-ix)$
(See Euler's formula)
New contributor
Is it possible to define the sine and cosine of a complex number without using exponential?
– Surb
Nov 7 at 23:08
That's a good question! It seems like Euler's formula would be meaningless if it were not possible to define sin and cos for imaginary numbers. Perhaps the Taylor Series would make sufficient definitions?
– Ben Jones
Nov 7 at 23:47
7
Sine and cosine can be defined by the corresponding power series. But this seems a bit like running in circles...
– weee
Nov 7 at 23:48
3
So we keep running in circles and going "@weee..."? =)
– user21820
2 days ago
5
@weee Where else would one run when dealing with sin and cos? :)
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
$e^x := cos(-ix) + i sin(-ix)$
(See Euler's formula)
New contributor
$e^x := cos(-ix) + i sin(-ix)$
(See Euler's formula)
New contributor
edited Nov 7 at 17:33
New contributor
answered Nov 7 at 16:06
Ben Jones
1374
1374
New contributor
New contributor
Is it possible to define the sine and cosine of a complex number without using exponential?
– Surb
Nov 7 at 23:08
That's a good question! It seems like Euler's formula would be meaningless if it were not possible to define sin and cos for imaginary numbers. Perhaps the Taylor Series would make sufficient definitions?
– Ben Jones
Nov 7 at 23:47
7
Sine and cosine can be defined by the corresponding power series. But this seems a bit like running in circles...
– weee
Nov 7 at 23:48
3
So we keep running in circles and going "@weee..."? =)
– user21820
2 days ago
5
@weee Where else would one run when dealing with sin and cos? :)
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
Is it possible to define the sine and cosine of a complex number without using exponential?
– Surb
Nov 7 at 23:08
That's a good question! It seems like Euler's formula would be meaningless if it were not possible to define sin and cos for imaginary numbers. Perhaps the Taylor Series would make sufficient definitions?
– Ben Jones
Nov 7 at 23:47
7
Sine and cosine can be defined by the corresponding power series. But this seems a bit like running in circles...
– weee
Nov 7 at 23:48
3
So we keep running in circles and going "@weee..."? =)
– user21820
2 days ago
5
@weee Where else would one run when dealing with sin and cos? :)
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
Is it possible to define the sine and cosine of a complex number without using exponential?
– Surb
Nov 7 at 23:08
Is it possible to define the sine and cosine of a complex number without using exponential?
– Surb
Nov 7 at 23:08
That's a good question! It seems like Euler's formula would be meaningless if it were not possible to define sin and cos for imaginary numbers. Perhaps the Taylor Series would make sufficient definitions?
– Ben Jones
Nov 7 at 23:47
That's a good question! It seems like Euler's formula would be meaningless if it were not possible to define sin and cos for imaginary numbers. Perhaps the Taylor Series would make sufficient definitions?
– Ben Jones
Nov 7 at 23:47
7
7
Sine and cosine can be defined by the corresponding power series. But this seems a bit like running in circles...
– weee
Nov 7 at 23:48
Sine and cosine can be defined by the corresponding power series. But this seems a bit like running in circles...
– weee
Nov 7 at 23:48
3
3
So we keep running in circles and going "@weee..."? =)
– user21820
2 days ago
So we keep running in circles and going "@weee..."? =)
– user21820
2 days ago
5
5
@weee Where else would one run when dealing with sin and cos? :)
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
@weee Where else would one run when dealing with sin and cos? :)
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
Similar to above. It pops up in applying Euler's Method for solving differential equations numerically:
Suppose we have $frac{dy}{dx}=ky.$ And we have $y(0)=1$.
By Euler's Method:
Pick some small $Delta x$. Then Let:
$$x_{n+1}=x_n+Delta x$$
$$y_{n+1}=y_n+frac{dy}{dx}Delta x=y_n+(ky_n)Delta x$$
With some rearranging:
$$y_{n+1}=y_n(1+kDelta x)implies y_{n+p}=y_n(1+kDelta x)^p$$
$$x_{n+p}=x_n+pDelta x $$
Now we have that $x_0$=0 and $y_0=1$. So:
$$x_{n+p}=(0)+pDelta x$$
$$y_{n+p}=(1)(1+kDelta x)^p$$
Suppose we know we want our last value of $x$ to b $z$ and we want $p$ steps. Then we want $Delta x$ to be $z/p$.
Then letting $n=0$,
$$y_p=(1+kfrac{z}{p})^p$$
By the limite mentioned above, $y_p$ gets closer and closer to $e^{kz}$ as $p$ goes to infinity.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Similar to above. It pops up in applying Euler's Method for solving differential equations numerically:
Suppose we have $frac{dy}{dx}=ky.$ And we have $y(0)=1$.
By Euler's Method:
Pick some small $Delta x$. Then Let:
$$x_{n+1}=x_n+Delta x$$
$$y_{n+1}=y_n+frac{dy}{dx}Delta x=y_n+(ky_n)Delta x$$
With some rearranging:
$$y_{n+1}=y_n(1+kDelta x)implies y_{n+p}=y_n(1+kDelta x)^p$$
$$x_{n+p}=x_n+pDelta x $$
Now we have that $x_0$=0 and $y_0=1$. So:
$$x_{n+p}=(0)+pDelta x$$
$$y_{n+p}=(1)(1+kDelta x)^p$$
Suppose we know we want our last value of $x$ to b $z$ and we want $p$ steps. Then we want $Delta x$ to be $z/p$.
Then letting $n=0$,
$$y_p=(1+kfrac{z}{p})^p$$
By the limite mentioned above, $y_p$ gets closer and closer to $e^{kz}$ as $p$ goes to infinity.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Similar to above. It pops up in applying Euler's Method for solving differential equations numerically:
Suppose we have $frac{dy}{dx}=ky.$ And we have $y(0)=1$.
By Euler's Method:
Pick some small $Delta x$. Then Let:
$$x_{n+1}=x_n+Delta x$$
$$y_{n+1}=y_n+frac{dy}{dx}Delta x=y_n+(ky_n)Delta x$$
With some rearranging:
$$y_{n+1}=y_n(1+kDelta x)implies y_{n+p}=y_n(1+kDelta x)^p$$
$$x_{n+p}=x_n+pDelta x $$
Now we have that $x_0$=0 and $y_0=1$. So:
$$x_{n+p}=(0)+pDelta x$$
$$y_{n+p}=(1)(1+kDelta x)^p$$
Suppose we know we want our last value of $x$ to b $z$ and we want $p$ steps. Then we want $Delta x$ to be $z/p$.
Then letting $n=0$,
$$y_p=(1+kfrac{z}{p})^p$$
By the limite mentioned above, $y_p$ gets closer and closer to $e^{kz}$ as $p$ goes to infinity.
Similar to above. It pops up in applying Euler's Method for solving differential equations numerically:
Suppose we have $frac{dy}{dx}=ky.$ And we have $y(0)=1$.
By Euler's Method:
Pick some small $Delta x$. Then Let:
$$x_{n+1}=x_n+Delta x$$
$$y_{n+1}=y_n+frac{dy}{dx}Delta x=y_n+(ky_n)Delta x$$
With some rearranging:
$$y_{n+1}=y_n(1+kDelta x)implies y_{n+p}=y_n(1+kDelta x)^p$$
$$x_{n+p}=x_n+pDelta x $$
Now we have that $x_0$=0 and $y_0=1$. So:
$$x_{n+p}=(0)+pDelta x$$
$$y_{n+p}=(1)(1+kDelta x)^p$$
Suppose we know we want our last value of $x$ to b $z$ and we want $p$ steps. Then we want $Delta x$ to be $z/p$.
Then letting $n=0$,
$$y_p=(1+kfrac{z}{p})^p$$
By the limite mentioned above, $y_p$ gets closer and closer to $e^{kz}$ as $p$ goes to infinity.
answered Nov 7 at 17:35
TurlocTheRed
42718
42718
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$f(x) = e^x > 0$ is such a function that
$$ intlimits_{1}^{f(x)} tfrac{1}{u} , mathrm{d}u = x$$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$f(x) = e^x > 0$ is such a function that
$$ intlimits_{1}^{f(x)} tfrac{1}{u} , mathrm{d}u = x$$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
$f(x) = e^x > 0$ is such a function that
$$ intlimits_{1}^{f(x)} tfrac{1}{u} , mathrm{d}u = x$$
$f(x) = e^x > 0$ is such a function that
$$ intlimits_{1}^{f(x)} tfrac{1}{u} , mathrm{d}u = x$$
answered Nov 8 at 3:00
robert bristow-johnson
204117
204117
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The exponential function is the unique smooth group isomorphism from the additive group of reals to the multiplicative group of positive reals whose derivative at zero is one.
It is the Lie group exponential map of the latter group.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The exponential function is the unique smooth group isomorphism from the additive group of reals to the multiplicative group of positive reals whose derivative at zero is one.
It is the Lie group exponential map of the latter group.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The exponential function is the unique smooth group isomorphism from the additive group of reals to the multiplicative group of positive reals whose derivative at zero is one.
It is the Lie group exponential map of the latter group.
The exponential function is the unique smooth group isomorphism from the additive group of reals to the multiplicative group of positive reals whose derivative at zero is one.
It is the Lie group exponential map of the latter group.
answered 14 hours ago
community wiki
Joonas Ilmavirta
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Definition of $e$:
$$lim_{hrightarrow 0} frac{e^h - 1}{h} = 1.$$
Define exponents as a supremum of a set of a real number to rational powers.
2
This needs a bit more elaboration as to how you define arbitrary real exponents.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
4
Also, this seems to define $e$ but not $xmapsto e^x$
– Surb
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Definition of $e$:
$$lim_{hrightarrow 0} frac{e^h - 1}{h} = 1.$$
Define exponents as a supremum of a set of a real number to rational powers.
2
This needs a bit more elaboration as to how you define arbitrary real exponents.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
4
Also, this seems to define $e$ but not $xmapsto e^x$
– Surb
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Definition of $e$:
$$lim_{hrightarrow 0} frac{e^h - 1}{h} = 1.$$
Define exponents as a supremum of a set of a real number to rational powers.
Definition of $e$:
$$lim_{hrightarrow 0} frac{e^h - 1}{h} = 1.$$
Define exponents as a supremum of a set of a real number to rational powers.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
PiKindOfGuy
1077
1077
2
This needs a bit more elaboration as to how you define arbitrary real exponents.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
4
Also, this seems to define $e$ but not $xmapsto e^x$
– Surb
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
This needs a bit more elaboration as to how you define arbitrary real exponents.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
4
Also, this seems to define $e$ but not $xmapsto e^x$
– Surb
2 days ago
2
2
This needs a bit more elaboration as to how you define arbitrary real exponents.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
This needs a bit more elaboration as to how you define arbitrary real exponents.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
4
4
Also, this seems to define $e$ but not $xmapsto e^x$
– Surb
2 days ago
Also, this seems to define $e$ but not $xmapsto e^x$
– Surb
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Similar things have been said, but not in that way:
$exp$ is the only fixed point $f$ of the derivative (seen as function $D: C^{k+1}(mathbb R) to C^{k}(mathbb R)$ for some $k in [0,infty]$, or between some other convenient spaces) which satisfies the normalization $f(0)=1$. (The set of all these fixed points is the one-dimensional eigenspace of $D$ for eigenvalue 1, and ${exp}$ is a somewhat "canonical" basis for that space.)
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Similar things have been said, but not in that way:
$exp$ is the only fixed point $f$ of the derivative (seen as function $D: C^{k+1}(mathbb R) to C^{k}(mathbb R)$ for some $k in [0,infty]$, or between some other convenient spaces) which satisfies the normalization $f(0)=1$. (The set of all these fixed points is the one-dimensional eigenspace of $D$ for eigenvalue 1, and ${exp}$ is a somewhat "canonical" basis for that space.)
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Similar things have been said, but not in that way:
$exp$ is the only fixed point $f$ of the derivative (seen as function $D: C^{k+1}(mathbb R) to C^{k}(mathbb R)$ for some $k in [0,infty]$, or between some other convenient spaces) which satisfies the normalization $f(0)=1$. (The set of all these fixed points is the one-dimensional eigenspace of $D$ for eigenvalue 1, and ${exp}$ is a somewhat "canonical" basis for that space.)
Similar things have been said, but not in that way:
$exp$ is the only fixed point $f$ of the derivative (seen as function $D: C^{k+1}(mathbb R) to C^{k}(mathbb R)$ for some $k in [0,infty]$, or between some other convenient spaces) which satisfies the normalization $f(0)=1$. (The set of all these fixed points is the one-dimensional eigenspace of $D$ for eigenvalue 1, and ${exp}$ is a somewhat "canonical" basis for that space.)
answered yesterday
community wiki
Max
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If we equip the one-dimensional manifold $(0,infty)$ with the Riemannian metric $dx^2/x^2$, then the Riemannian exponential map at the point $1$ is the usual exponential function.
This is the unique metric that makes the exponential function an exponential map.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If we equip the one-dimensional manifold $(0,infty)$ with the Riemannian metric $dx^2/x^2$, then the Riemannian exponential map at the point $1$ is the usual exponential function.
This is the unique metric that makes the exponential function an exponential map.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
If we equip the one-dimensional manifold $(0,infty)$ with the Riemannian metric $dx^2/x^2$, then the Riemannian exponential map at the point $1$ is the usual exponential function.
This is the unique metric that makes the exponential function an exponential map.
If we equip the one-dimensional manifold $(0,infty)$ with the Riemannian metric $dx^2/x^2$, then the Riemannian exponential map at the point $1$ is the usual exponential function.
This is the unique metric that makes the exponential function an exponential map.
answered 13 hours ago
community wiki
Joonas Ilmavirta
add a comment |
add a comment |
protected by Aloizio Macedo♦ 2 days ago
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
5
Related : math.stackexchange.com/questions/833962/…
– Arnaud D.
Nov 7 at 13:35
1
continued fraction: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– R zu
2 days ago
1
Your last definition is tricky and the existence of such a function is usually proved by showing that this this definition leads to other more suitable ones.
– Paramanand Singh
2 days ago
1
I was not aware that your last one could actually used as a definition. And I am impressed because I have the habit of making my mathSE answers involving the exponential depend solely on these two properties!
– Hagen von Eitzen
2 days ago
2
@Aloizio I'm not sure Community Wiki was warranted here. If a question is valuable enough that you believe it belongs on the site, chances are you don’t need it to be community wiki! [...] Instead, strive for quality. If you’re unsure a certain question class belongs on the site, don’t tolerate the worst examples — demand that these questions be awesome. [...] questions rarely, if ever, need community wiki.
– user3641
2 days ago