I'm only an undergrad so sorry if this is a dumb question, but I was studying Poisson distribution and it struck me that so many models involve "e". So it got me wondering; how/when/where/why do they decide to use it? I'm assuming they don't build a model and include "e" just because, and there must be some sort of fundamental intuition behind when its use is appropriate.
-
4I don't think $e$ is the relevant object here. I think the function $x \mapsto e^x$ is really the important piece of information. It enjoys many useful properties and is convenient to use – Andres Mejia Aug 11 '18 at 23:06
-
1The importance/definition of $e$ relies on the fact that if $f'(x)=f(x)$ and $f(0)=1$, then $f(1)=e$. In other terms Euler's constant is deeply related with one of the most simple differential equations we may consider, like the one arising for motions where the friction is proportional to the speed, or the radioactive decay. – Jack D'Aurizio Aug 11 '18 at 23:19
-
Have you looked at whence the Poisson distribution was derived? There is a pattern that accounts for why $e^x$ shows up in so many places. – gen-ℤ ready to perish Aug 11 '18 at 23:25
-
@Chase Ryan. No I have not but would love to. Is there a particular resource you recommend? – Jeff Aug 11 '18 at 23:49
-
@Jeff Wikipedia or Wolfram Mathworld. Just do research. – gen-ℤ ready to perish Aug 12 '18 at 01:06
3 Answers
Actually, on the contrary - often you do use $e$ "just because". Or, well, almost. The thing is, any exponential expression can be written as a power of $e$ (for example $2^{3x - 2}$ is just $\frac{1}{4}e^{3x\ln{2}}$). And powers of $e$ are super convenient for all sorts of reasons - the first being that $\frac{d}{dx}e^x = e^x$ and $\int e^xdx = e^x + c$, so powers of $e$ are ridiculously easy to differentiate and integrate. What that means is that whenever a mathematician is building a model that involves some sort of exponential, they'll usually convert it into a power of $e$ unless they have a pressing reason not to.
EDIT: To walk through that example:
First, remember that $a^{b + c} = a^ba^c$, and that for any $a$ we have $a = e^{\ln{a}}$ (this isn't a fancy property of $e$, just logarithms in general). So
$$2^{3x - 2} = 2^{3x}2^{-2} = (e^{\ln{2}})^{3x}2^{-2}$$
Next, use the fact that $(a^b)^c = a^{bc}$, and that $2^{-2} = \frac{1}{4}$.
$$(e^{\ln{2}})^{3x}2^{-2} = \frac{1}{4}e^{(\ln{2}) \cdot 3x}$$
Finally, rewriting it to be a little more readable, we get $\frac{1}{4}e^{3x\ln{2}}$.

- 17,988
-
Woah!! Absolutely brilliant! I'm a little embarrassed though - should I have known that any exponential expression can be written to the power of e? I don't recall ever learning that brilliant piece of info. At the risk of sounding stupid again, I'm sorry but in your example, how does that math work? I tried to work it out a few times but am stumped. – Jeff Aug 11 '18 at 23:34
-
@Jeff The tools used are usually presented in precalculus (at least, in US schools) but often the fact itself isn't heavily emphasized - for one thing, that fact doesn't actually have anything to do with $e$. Any exponential expression can be written as a power of any positive number (except $1$). – Reese Johnston Aug 11 '18 at 23:42
-
@Jeff it is worth mentioning that how we rigorously define exponentiation by a real number is often done through the use of $e$. This, also, is sadly not emphasized often enough as it should be, leading people to be confused as to how to calculate or even interpret $2^\pi$ for example. For information on this, see this question. – JMoravitz Aug 11 '18 at 23:48
-
@Reese. Thanks so much for your clear explanation. It makes so much sense, and of course once you started it I was able to figure it out. I get such a mental block when I see "e" and "ln" that I forget everything I learned. I gotta quit giving up so quickly. – Jeff Aug 12 '18 at 00:03
An example of daily life usage of $e$ and why it comes about might be in calculating interest.
For compound interest if we have an initial investment of $P_0$ which grows at an interest rate of $r$ which is compounded $n$ times per unit time (e.g. a year), then the total amount of money the investment is worth after $t$ amount of unit time would be given as:
$$P(t)=P_0(1+\frac{r}{n})^{nt}$$
For example, if we were to compound the interest only once per year it would be $P_0(1+r)^t$, if we did it twice per year, $P_0(1+\frac{r}{2})^{2t}$, if we were to do it 365 times per year it would be $P_0(1+\frac{r}{365})^{365t}$ etc...
Now, an astute observer might notice that if we keep increasing the number of times per year that the interest is compounded, we eventually reach a limit where there is no noticable change. Indeed, by taking the limit as $n$ approaches infinity we arrive at the idea of continuous interest.
For continuous interest if we have an initial investment of $P_0$ which grows at a continuous interest rate of $r$, then the total amount of money the investment is worth after $t$ amount of time would be given as:
$$P(t)=P_0e^{rt}$$
That is to say, $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}P_0(1+\frac{r}{n})^{nt}=P_0e^{rt}$. This observation occurs as a direct result of how $e$ is defined.
As a result, most problems involving exponential growth and decay (e.g. radioactivity, population growth/decline, investments) will if modeled as having their growth/decay occurring continuously rather than happening at set intervals involve some function of $e$.

- 79,518
-
So mathematicians don't determine when to use $e$, this special constant imposes itself – Aug 11 '18 at 23:34
-
2@VincentLaw answering that is like answering a "chicken and egg" scenario. Did we "invent" $e$ or did we "discover" it (or truly, any of mathematics). In the end, we know of the existence of $e$ and we know that $e$ is useful for many applications because it couldn't have been any other way. Whether we specifically chose $e$ for this important role, or whether we discovered that $e$ fulfills this important role is largely irrelevant. – JMoravitz Aug 11 '18 at 23:36
-
@JMoravitz. That is a remarkable response thank you! I think I get the intuition a little better now. It's not so much that "e" is used at the beginning of a model perse, but that when building the model, after doing arithmetic (by very astute folks) portions can be reduced to e? – Jeff Aug 11 '18 at 23:47
-
With respect to the Poisson distribution, you should read up on the connections between Poisson arrival processes, exponential interarrival time distributions and the Poisson distributions for the number of arrivals in a time period.
You could avoid the use of $e$ in this context, but only by adding additional constant factors that would make all of the expressions more complicated.

- 10,563