Skip to main content

Euler's number and banking



 How does continuous compound interest work? 

Well, suppose the magical "Bank of Bernoulli" offers you 100 percent interest per annum. Or, in decimal terms, a return of 1.0. 

Great. You put a dollar in the bank and the bank gives you two dollars at the end of the year, one dollar representing the principal, the other the yield. Only one simple computation has to be made, so we can say of this situation that n = 1.

It gets better.  Bank of Bernoulli [so named after the great 17th century mathematician Jacob Bernoulli] decides to compound semi-annually.  You put in one dollar, and on June 30 you are credited with 100 percent interest for half a year, or $0.50. In the second half of the year, you earn the same 1/2 of the underlying annual rate, for the redefined principal amount, this time on $1.50.  So you earn $0.75 between June 30 and December 31. This means you have $2.25 waiting for you at the end of the year.

You can keep this up, presuming a calculation at the end of every quarter (n=4) or month (n-12) and so forth. 

You will find that at each stage 

A(n)=(1+1/n)n

Where A is the final amount in the bank. So, for example, the amount when n = 2, with the mid-year break we mentioned above, is 1 + 1/2, or 1.5, to the power of 2. That gives us 2.25. 

If there is a daily compounding, so that when n is 365, then the amount available in the account at the end of the year is found by adding 1 to 1/365, then raising the result to the power of 365. In that case, A, the final amount at the end of the year, is $2.71. The amounts continue to grow as the input n grows, but they grow by diminishing amounts, so that over time they are levelling off, to a limit.   

Can we calculate the continuous compound interest, as n approaches infinity? Bernoulli came from a banking family, so his interest in the mathematics of it apparently began very young. 

It turns out that the proper formula for yield is Pert = A.  This is easy to remember for English speaking folks who know the word "pert"! It means that the amount of principal, multiplied by e [Bernoulli didn't call it that when he first worked this out in the 1680s, but we will make do with archaisms], then raised to a power defined by the time the money spends earning interest and the underlying interest rate, gives us the final amount. 

The underlying interest rate is expressed as a fraction, so that for the superscript "t" above we don't use, say, "4%", we use 0.04. 

Or, for our Bank of Bernoulli example, we say that r is 1 and t is 1, so the exponent that results from multiplying them ... is one.

The initial investment, P, is one dollar.  Since everything else in this formula is one, the amount, A, must be given us by e. And if you follow this through, you find that the number e, the limit of this process approaching infinity, is irrational, i.e. there is an infinity of digits beginning 2.71828. So  (with a quite modest rounding up) you will get $2.72 at the end of the year. 

That is where, so to speak, Achilles catches the tortoise. Yes, Bernoulli's discussion arose in the early days of calculus and the refutation of Zeno that calculus allows. Bernoulli knew Leibniz and was in a sense 'in on' the early days of calculus as a branch of mathematics. 

So: why is the number named e, and called Euler's number? Why isn't it called b? 

More to come.  



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...