Skip to main content

Euler's number and beauty

 


Yesterday we discussed the limit of the process of compounding interest. As we move through even shorter periods, from semi-annual to quarterly to monthly compounding and so forth, and as we approach an infinity of infinitesimal periods, i,e. continuous compounding, we find the number 2.71828 arises to stare us in the face as a limit. 

This was Jacob Bernoulli's result. So why is the number called Euler's number, and sometimes just e? Did Euler name it for himself? And, if so, isn't that an injustice? Shouldn't it be called b?

Well, Bernoulli found 2.71828... but he neglected to name it.  Gottfried Leibniz, the man recognized as THE founder of calculus in the German speaking world, seems to have called it "b" in letters he wrote in 1690 and 1691.  Perhaps this was a recognition of Bernoulli's role. 

More important, though, Bernoulli neglected to explore the properties of this number outside of banking.  It was Euler (pictured above) who defined it as the base of the natural logarithm. Euler connected it to exponential functions and proved it was irrational 

Euler seems not to have had his own initial in mind at the time. He had used a, b, c, and d for other constants and variables, and (if that is not reason enough) he may have had in mind the word "exponential". 

I'll mention just one more Eulerian contribution here. He said that since the limit identified by Bernoulli, taken to a power defined by the square root of negative 1 (called i) multiplied by pi, equals -1. Further, he expressed that in what is known as Euler's identity.

 

People rhapsodize over the beauty of that equation. It combines the three key letter symbols into one expression and connects them to the binary pair 1/0. Two mathematicians writing in 1940 said that it "appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, the mathematician."  

And perhaps alchemists.  

"Let's take something imaginary and combine it with something irrational!" 

"Great, then let us call THAT an exponent of the base of ... something else irrational.  But newer!"

"Ooooh, good. Then add it to unity, and get...?" 

"Nothingness!"

"Aaaaah." 

As to practical applications of all this.....beyond banking of course: I am told that circuits of AC [alternating current] are modelled using sinusoidal functions, and that Euler's identity helps with this work. Please don't press me too hard on what that means. 

The fact that Euler started to use "e" for the expression of 2.71828..., along with his importance in developing the number's importance, and the beauty of his identity, have all made and kept it "Euler's number," and e for short. 

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...