1

I occasionally see proofs where the limit definition for $e$ pops up and I don't recognize it for some reason, every time!

$$e = \lim_{n \to \infty} \left( 1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^n$$

For one thing I don't know why it's defined this way or why this particular number is so important. I know the derivative of $e^x$ is still $e^x$ so there's probably some relation in there (except when I take the derivative of $e$ in Wolfram Alpha it gives me a huge messy log expression, not equal to the original), but how can I better understand what $e$ is so all these various relationships and proofs are more obvious to me?

For instance that limit expression I have no idea how to solve, because the inner part approaches $1$ but the exponent approaches infinity, but the answer is certainly not $1^\infty = 1$.

Why is it defined this way? How do we solve it? How do we use it?

Lukas Heger
  • 20,801
user525966
  • 5,631
  • Hint : L'Hospital's rule. – Sunyam Feb 05 '18 at 06:03
  • I thought L'Hopital's Rule was only for limits of form $0/0$ or $\pm \infty / \infty$. Either way I don't know how we're supposed to use it here. – user525966 Feb 05 '18 at 06:04
  • 3
    Apply L'Hospital's rule to the exponent of $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}^{}(1+\frac{1}{n})^{n}{}=e{}^{\frac{\ln(1+\frac{1}{n})}{\frac{1}{n}}}$. – Sunyam Feb 05 '18 at 06:06
  • 2
    The yield from one dollar at 100% annual interest for one year, compounded n times annually; where n goes to infinity. – bof Feb 05 '18 at 06:10
  • Why is it defined this way? Presumably, you showed (or were shown) that the limit exists. Then its value was defined as $,e,$. In that case, it's just the definition of $,e,$. I guess I don't understand the why part of the question. Compare to "why was $\pi$ defined as the ratio of the circumference to the diameter". – dxiv Feb 05 '18 at 06:12
  • @Sunyam That just sent me on a wild goose chase. What was the point of that? – user525966 Feb 05 '18 at 06:22
  • 1
    The whole theory of exponential and logarithmic functions can be developed using multiple approaches and you should first try to get familiar with at least one approach. I have discussed this in my blog posts as well as several answers here. – Paramanand Singh Feb 05 '18 at 07:17
  • Go here $\longrightarrow$ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuA2EAgAegE – Mr Pie Feb 05 '18 at 07:28
  • The "huge messy" derivative that you get is most probably because you differentiate on $n$, which is not the right thing to do. The limit gives you a constant, $e$, and you need to differentiate $e^x$ on $x$. –  Feb 05 '18 at 07:31
  • There are lots of questions about this already. For example, you might start by looking at these questions (and the linked questions there): https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/136784/why-lim-limits-n-to-infty-left1-frac1n-rightn-doesnt-evaluate-to, https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/797/whats-so-natural-about-the-base-of-natural-logarithms – Hans Lundmark Feb 05 '18 at 08:16

5 Answers5

5

$$\begin{aligned} \lim_{n \to \infty} \left( 1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^n&=\lim_{n \to \infty}\exp\left(\ln\left( \left( 1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^n\right)\right)=\exp\left(\lim_{n \to \infty}\ln\left( \left( 1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^n\right)\right)=\\& =\exp\left(\lim_{n \to \infty}n\ln \left( 1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)\right)\to\small{\begin{bmatrix} &s=1/n&\\ &s\to0& \end{bmatrix}}\to\\ &\to\exp\left(\lim_{s\to 0}\frac{\ln\left( 1 + s\right)}{s}\right)=\exp(1)=e. \end{aligned}$$

Note: This could have also worked with $\lim_{n \to \infty}a^{\log_a\left( 1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^n}$ with $a$ being a constant, but here Hôspital's Rule must be used. (Be careful when you differentiate $\log_a(f(x))$).


Another approach: (requires Calculus II knowledge)

Using the Binomial Theorem

$$\left( 1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^n=\sum_\limits{j=0}^\limits{n}{n \choose j}\frac{1}{n^j}=\sum_\limits{j=0}^\limits{n}\frac{n!}{(n-j)!n^j}\frac{1}{j!}$$ Note that $$\left(\frac{n-j+1}{n}\right)\leq\frac{n!}{(n-j)!n^j}\leq1$$ and by Bernoulli's inequality $$\left(\frac{n-j+1}{n}\right)^j=\left(1-\frac{j-1}{n}\right)^j\geq1-\frac{j(j-1)}{n}$$ whence $$\sum_\limits{j=0}^\limits{n}\frac{1}{j!}-\frac{1}{n}\sum_\limits{j=0}^\limits{n}\frac{1}{(j-2)!}\leq\left( 1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^n\leq\sum_\limits{j=0}^\limits{n}\frac{1}{j!}$$ Since $\sum_\limits{j=0}^\limits{n}\frac{1}{j!}$ is convergent it follows that $\left( 1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^n$ tends to the sum of that series, which is $e$.


If you want to know more about this check out e: the Story of a Number by Eli Maor.

kiyomi
  • 1,424
  • 4
    @dxiv it is also tagged calculus. – kiyomi Feb 05 '18 at 06:17
  • Fair point, though showing that $,\exp(1)=e,$ is either redundant, or depending on definitions that weren't spelled out in either the question or this answer. – dxiv Feb 05 '18 at 06:19
  • I don't understand this answer at all. What's going on? – user525966 Feb 05 '18 at 06:20
  • @user525966 If you don't understand this answer at all then you shouldn't have tagged your question with calculus to begin with. – dxiv Feb 05 '18 at 06:21
  • @dxiv well, I showed it in that way to make it clear that the limit approached $1$. – kiyomi Feb 05 '18 at 06:21
  • @dxiv I'll be sure next time to only ask questions for things I know the answer to, thanks. – user525966 Feb 05 '18 at 06:23
  • 1
    @user525966 Sarcasm taken, thank you ;-) but that's not what I said, or even remotely implied. – dxiv Feb 05 '18 at 06:24
  • @Denis28 How $\exp$ is defined exactly, since we're technically using the natural log too which is base-e, and e is the very thing we're trying to define here. Wasn't sure if that is a valid way to go or not. And that bit in the second line, is that a re-mapping of variables? I can't tell what's happening there exactly since we have $s$ pointing to two different things. And that last line, is that simply defining the result? How do we evaluate it? – user525966 Feb 05 '18 at 06:24
  • $\exp$ is $e$, I wrote it in that way to make the formatting better. Also, $s$ is not pointing to $2$ different things. I made the substitution $s=1/n$, therefore, as $n$ approaches $\infty$, $s$ approaches $0$. By the way, $e$ can be defined in many different ways, this is the first way it was defined. (by mathematician Jakob Bernoulli) – kiyomi Feb 05 '18 at 06:31
  • is it valid to do this? We're sort of defining $e$ but also using $e$ as part of its own definition. – user525966 Feb 05 '18 at 06:32
  • @user525966 I added a different approach that does not explicitly use $e$. See now. – kiyomi Feb 05 '18 at 06:45
  • @Denis28 How would we perform the step where we use L'Hopital and take the derivative of $\ln_e(\frac{1+s}{s})$ as $s$ goes to $0$? Can we derive the result $\frac{1}{1+s}$ without using $e$? – user525966 Feb 05 '18 at 22:12
  • @user525966 that’s a fundamental limit. However, you can use, as you said, Hospital and take the derivative of $\ln(s+1)$ and $s$. – kiyomi Feb 05 '18 at 22:16
  • @Denis28 But I'm asking how to take the derivative of $\ln$ assuming we don't yet know what $e$ is, etc. The proof for that one seems circular to me – user525966 Feb 05 '18 at 22:51
  • 3
    @user525966 the purpose of the first answer was to show to you how to evaluate that limit given that $\ln$ and $e$ are well defined (not a proof). Later, you stated that you didn't want to make that assumption so that's why I also put the second answer. I don't really know in what other way to explain it to you. In the answer that you posted, you took the derivative of $\ln$, so I don't understand why you are making up criteria as the days pass by. If you want a full rigorous proof, I am sure you can find something on this site or online. Also, comments are not made for extended discussion – kiyomi Feb 05 '18 at 23:13
  • 3
    @user525966 also, you are asking to take the derivative, why? It is a fundamental limit. If you want the proof of the limit, without Hospital, then you can use Taylor series. Don't ask about topics that require more math knowledge than you have right now. – kiyomi Feb 05 '18 at 23:17
3
  • Why is it defined this way?

The fundamental reason is that $(e^x)'=e^x$ and that makes it the most "natural" choice of the base. By contrast, $(a^x)'=\log a\,a^x$, and we don't like the $\log a$ factor.

  • How do we solve it?

Strictly speaking you can't solve the limit $\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac1n\right)^n$ because it is the definition of the constant $e$. As long as you have not defined $e$, you cannot express the value of the limit as it is a not-yet-defined number. (Some other answers here are circular arguments showing that $e=e$.)

[A similar situation is with $\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac1k-\log n\right)$, which tends to a "new" constant named $\gamma$.]

  • How do we use it?

A convenient way to evaluate it is by turning the definition in the equivalent expression $\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac1{n!}$, which is a very fast convergent series. This formula can be obtained by expanding $(1+\frac1n)^n$ by means of the binomial theorem and reworking.

It is also useful to know the formula below (easily obtained by the change of variable $nx\leftrightarrow m$):

$$e^x=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac1n\right)^{nx}=\lim_{m\to\infty}\left(1+\frac xm\right)^m.$$

  • Is there a way to remember the limit definition ?

Maybe it helps to remember that it is a $1^\infty$ indeterminate form (hence some connection to exponentials), where $1$ is reached in the simple form $1+\frac1n$ and infinity as just $n$. That's about the simplest indeterminate form $1^\infty$ you can think of.

1

Well I don't know for a fact that this limit definition came from compound interest, but that's certainly how I was introduced to it. In one year at an interest rate of $r$ your gain is a factor of $(1 + r)$. Compounded twice a year at the same annual rate, it is $(1 + \frac{r}{2})^2$. Twelve times a year would be $(1 + \frac{r}{12})^{12}$. If you compounded interest continuously and your interest rate was 100% (quite the bank!) then you'd have $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} (1 + \frac{1}{n})^n$. To prove that this converges and is the base of the natural logarithm takes some work.

law-of-fives
  • 1,963
1

The more relevant limit is $$ e^x = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n $$ which comes from compound interest problems. This, I believe, was the origin of $e$, which is obviously the case $x = 1$.

I'm going to demonstrate that this is indeed $e^x$, which will also tie this together with several other definitions of the function.

First, we need to know this limit converges. We look at $$ \left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n = \sum_{i=0}^n\frac{n!}{i!(n-i)!}\frac{x^i}{n^i} = \sum_{i=0}^n\left[\prod_{j=1}^i\left(1+\frac{j+1}{n}\right)\right]\frac{x^i}{i!} $$ For every $i$, that product is a finite number of factors that converge to $1$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, so it also converges to $1$. Thus, $$ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1 + \frac{x}{n}\right)^n = \sum_{i=0}^\infty\frac{x^i}{i!} $$ which can be shown to converge by your favorite series convergence test. Note that this is, in fact, the power series for $e^x$.


Next we show that this is $\exp(x)$, the function whose derivative is equal to itself and satisfies $\exp(0) = 1$. That second part is self-evident, while a quick application of the chain rule shows $$ \frac{d}{dx}\left[\left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n\right] = n\left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^{n-1}\frac{1}{n} = \left(1 + \frac{x}{n}\right)^{n-1} = \frac{1}{1+x/n}\cdot\left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n. $$ Using that in our limit definition gives $$ \frac{d}{dx}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left[\left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n\right] = \left[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{1+x/n}\right]\left[\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n\right] = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n $$ as desired. Note that termwise differentiation of $\sum x^i/i!$ will also give you back the same function, so these both represent $\exp(x)$. That is, $$ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \frac{x^i}{i!} = \exp(x) $$


Lastly, we show that $\exp(x + y) = \exp(x)\exp(y)$. This can be found by noting that $(d/dx)[\exp(x + y)] = \exp(x+y)$, so $\exp(x+y) = C\exp(x)$ for some constant $C$, which pretty clearly has to be $\exp(y)$. So $\exp(x+y) = \exp(x)\exp(y)$. This can be extended to show that $\exp(x) = \exp(1)^x$ for all rational $x$, at which point continuity ensures it's true for all $x$. Letting $e = \exp(1)$ gives $$ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \frac{x^i}{i!} = \exp(x) = e^x $$ which gives us as a special case $$ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \frac{1}{i!} = \exp(1) = e $$

eyeballfrog
  • 22,485
1

The reason $e^x$ is called the natural exponential function and $\ln x= \log_e x$ is called the natural logarithm is that they occur naturally as you develop calculus. For example, you can prove from definition that for any function $f(x)=a^x$ where $a>0$, the derivative $f'(x)$ is given by $$ f'(x)=a^x\cdot\lim_{h\to 0}{\frac{a^h-1}{h}}=a^x\cdot C_a, $$ where $C_a$ is some constant depending on $a$, but independent of $x$. It is also pretty easy to see that if $0<a<b$, then $C_a<C_b$, and that $C_1=0$.

Naturally, you would prefer not to have to lug this constant around in all your calculations involving the exponential function, nor to have an extra factor appear every time you differentiate such a function. In other words, you would like to find some constant $e$ for which $C_e=1$.

After some more calculations involving the chain rule and the inverse function, it can be shown that $(\ln x)'=\frac{1}{x}$, and since by the change-of-base formula we have $\log_a x=\frac{\ln x}{\ln a}$, it turns out that $(\log_a x)'=\frac{1}{x\ln a}$, and from that using the derivative of the inverse function again, we conclude that $(a^x)'=a^x\ln a$. And thus we need the number $e$ pretty much everywhere in calculus.

At the same time, thinking about the continuously compounded interest problem, one can show that all such problems can be reduced to \$1 continuously compounded at 100% nominal annual interest. The amount you get from this is $\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n$.

It can be proved using the AM-GM inequality and the forward-backward induction that the sequence $a_n=\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n$ is increasing, while the sequence $b_n=\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^{n+1}$ is decreasing, which means (since $b_n=\left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)a_n>a_n$ for every $n$) that both sequences are bounded by $a_1=2$ from below and $b_1=4$ from above, and thus both sequences converge, and to the same limit. It can be shown (see one of the other answers here) that this limit is the same number $e$ as the one we naturally needed for differentiation of exponential functions.

So, "why is it defined this way?" Because we need it in so many places, not for any cruel or unusual purposes. Both $e$ and $\pi$ are complicated numbers, but it's a trade-off for all the nice properties they have.

  • 1
    This is somewhat difficult approach in terms of rigorous proofs, but the idea is simple to understand and more intuitive than other approach. In particular one needs a clear definition of $a^x$ without use of $\log, \exp$ symbols and also needs justification for existence of limit $C_a$ and its properties. – Paramanand Singh Feb 05 '18 at 07:28
  • @ParamanandSingh It's not that difficult. To define, $a^x$, just define it for positive integers, 0, -1, negative integers, rational numbers, and then extend to all real numbers. – Alexander Burstein Feb 05 '18 at 07:37
  • Extending to all real numbers requires reasonable amount of work. I have given one approach in my blog http://paramanands.blogspot.com/2014/05/theories-of-exponential-and-logarithmic-functions-part-3.html – Paramanand Singh Feb 05 '18 at 07:44
  • Well, yes, but you only have to do it once. Say, Dedekind cuts. I'm just trying to give an idea as to why $e$ is needed, sort of a bird's eye view of things. – Alexander Burstein Feb 05 '18 at 07:47