50

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 $$e^x:=\lim_{n\to\infty}\bigg(1+\frac{x}{n}\bigg)^n$$ or this one: Define $e^x:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\\$ as unique function satisfying: \begin{align} e^x\geq x+1\\ \forall x,y\in\mathbb{R}:e^{x+y}=e^xe^y \end{align} Can anyone come up with something unusual? (Possibly with some explanation or references).

  • Your second definition is incorrect: the second $;1;$ must be $;x;$ , and the last one just doesn't make sense as it doesn't define anything at all... – DonAntonio Nov 07 '18 at 13:22
  • 6
    Related : https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/833962/how-many-different-definitions-of-e-are-there – Arnaud D. Nov 07 '18 at 13:35
  • See also https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1558734/what-are-different-approaches-to-introduce-the-elementary-functions – Arnaud D. Nov 07 '18 at 13:40
  • And https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/381397/definition-of-expx – celtschk Nov 07 '18 at 14:57
  • 2
    continued fraction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_continued_fraction_formula#The_exponential_function – R zu Nov 08 '18 at 04:29
  • 2
    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 Nov 08 '18 at 09:05
  • 4
    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 Nov 08 '18 at 16:05
  • Just today, i discussed this topic with my analysis lecturer, who was also bit unsure, but it suits me well, because we don't need to work with the series, and eventually arrive at it as a Maclaurin series. The problem might be that we work with something which we don't know if exists. – Michal Dvořák Nov 08 '18 at 16:19
  • 4
    @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.](https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/08/19/the-future-of-community-wiki/) – Jeremy Nov 08 '18 at 20:46
  • @HagenvonEitzen: the last definition is not very well-known / popular but it is available as one of my questions: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1776836/72031 and a full development is done at https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1776286/72031 – Paramanand Singh Nov 09 '18 at 09:00
  • +1.Nice post. I learned many ideas. Thank you. – Avinash N Nov 10 '18 at 06:33
  • Function $t$ in DE $ \dfrac{dt}{dx}=t $.. upto a constant coefficient. – Narasimham Nov 14 '18 at 16:49

17 Answers17

64

The exponential function is the unique solution of the initial value problem

$y'(x)=y(x) , \quad y(0)=1$.

Fred
  • 77,394
32

We can also define $e^x$ as follows:

  • the inverse function of $\ln x$, defining $\ln x$ independently as follows

$$\ln x := \int_1^x \frac{dt}{t}$$

user
  • 154,566
  • 3
    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 07 '18 at 15:47
  • 10
    And a good candidate for the definition of $\ln x$ would be $\ln x := \int_1^x \frac{dt}{t}$. – Daniel Schepler Nov 07 '18 at 17:28
  • @DanielSchepler Thanks good point! That's commenti will be useful to the asker and future readers. – user Nov 07 '18 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 07 '18 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 Nov 08 '18 at 09:08
  • @ParamanandSingh - I understand. The reason for my interest in a purely algebraic definition is, that a similar $exp()$ is defined for matrices (which I came across in differential geometry), which leads me to speculate that the definition might be generalised more widely into ring-theory, or since that seems to be fashionable, perhaps even category theory. The latter may not even be complete madness - there is the subject of synthetic differential geometry; once I get around to studying that, I may find out, of course. – j4nd3r53n Nov 08 '18 at 10:19
15

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.

usul
  • 3,724
14

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.

badjohn
  • 8,204
  • 1
    Can you elaborate your answer with something concrete? – Michal Dvořák Nov 07 '18 at 13:28
  • I expanded my answer. – badjohn Nov 07 '18 at 13:39
  • How do you define $e$ ? – Michal Dvořák Nov 07 '18 at 15:16
  • 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 07 '18 at 15:43
  • 5
    You might just define $x^y$ at this point. – Ori Gurel-Gurevich Nov 07 '18 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 07 '18 at 16:31
  • @MichalDvořák: In this approach the introduction to number $e$ is bit unusual. Typically while evaluating derivative of $f(x) =a^x$ one encounters the function $g(a) =\lim_{h\to 0}\dfrac{a^h-1}{h}$ and one proves that $g$ is strictly increasing with domain $\mathbb {R} ^{+} $ and range $\mathbb{R} $. This guarantees the existence of a positive number $e$ with $g(e) =1$ and surprisingly $e^x$ then turns out to be the inverse of $g$. – Paramanand Singh Nov 08 '18 at 09:12
  • 1
    Yes, this approach is unusual but that is what was requested. – badjohn Nov 08 '18 at 09:19
  • As mentioned in your last paragraph, I also believe this to be most natural approach. That the proofs in this approach turn out to be difficult is what I consider bit unusual. – Paramanand Singh Nov 08 '18 at 13:08
  • I remember discussing the definition of $e^x$ some years ago. Initially, I favoured one based on an important property such as Fred's answer. However, I was convinced that the power series was the best definition and the other potential definitions should be theorems. Less intuitive but probably easier overall. – badjohn Nov 08 '18 at 13:28
9

You can also define the exponential function like this: $$ e^x = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{f_n(x)}{f_n(-x)} $$ where $$ f_n(x) = \sum_{j=0}^n \frac{(2n-j)!}{j!(n-j)!}x^j $$

Dominique
  • 2,130
Glen O
  • 12,425
  • 3
    I have never seen this one, and it's interesting, could you please relate this somehow to the usual definitions? – Michal Dvořák Nov 08 '18 at 07:15
  • @MichalDvořák - it's using Pade Approximants. The Pade approximant for $e^x$ for any orders (numerator and denominator) are well-known. I've just used the approximants for equal order numerator and denominator, which turns out to be relatively neat. Basically, for a given $n$, this formula will give the same Taylor expansion as $e^x$ for the first $2n$ terms. – Glen O Nov 11 '18 at 09:43
7

Let $D_n$ be the number of permutations of $[n]$ without fixed points (i.e. derangements). Define $$ \frac{1}{e}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{D_n}{n!}. $$

7

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.

5

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.

5

$e^x := \cos(-ix) + i \sin(-ix)$

(See Euler's formula)

Ben Jones
  • 173
  • 1
    Is it possible to define the sine and cosine of a complex number without using exponential? – Surb Nov 07 '18 at 23:08
  • 1
    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 07 '18 at 23:47
  • 9
    Sine and cosine can be defined by the corresponding power series. But this seems a bit like running in circles... – weee Nov 07 '18 at 23:48
  • @weee all depends on where you start! – Ben Jones Nov 07 '18 at 23:48
  • 7
    So we keep running in circles and going "@weee..."? =) – user21820 Nov 08 '18 at 08:04
  • 9
    @weee Where else would one run when dealing with sin and cos? :) – Hagen von Eitzen Nov 08 '18 at 16:08
  • In same vein as weee's comment we can define $\cosh$, $\sinh$ as unique solutions to diffeqs... but we are working hard to make this look this answer look different than Fred's when it's really the same. Perhaps a worthwhile connection is that the equation given here also clearly satisfies the IVP given in Fred's answer. – Mason Nov 13 '18 at 20:34
5

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, $$e^x= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \left[ \frac{n!}{n^n\sqrt{(2n+\frac13)\pi}} \right] ^{x/n} $$

Acccumulation
  • 12,210
3

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: $$y_{n+1}=y_n(1+k\Delta x)\implies y_{n+p}=y_n(1+k\Delta x)^p$$ $$x_{n+p}=x_n+p\Delta x $$

Now we have that $x_0$=0 and $y_0=1$. So: $$x_{n+p}=(0)+p\Delta x$$ $$y_{n+p}=(1)(1+k\Delta x)^p$$

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 $n=0$,

$$y_p=(1+k\frac{z}{p})^p$$

By the limite mentioned above, $y_p$ gets closer and closer to $e^{kz}$ as $p$ goes to infinity.

TurlocTheRed
  • 5,683
2

Definition of $e$:

$$\lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{e^h - 1}{h} = 1.$$

Define an exponent as a supremum of a set of a real number to rational powers.

2

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.

1

$f(x) = e^x > 0$ is such a function that

$$ \int\limits_{1}^{f(x)} \tfrac{1}{u} \, \mathrm{d}u \ = \ x$$

1

Here is a very simple geometric construction which produces $f(x)=e^x$.

Take two objects on a flat level surface, one at the point $(0,0)$ and the other at $(0,1)$, that are connected by a piece of string. Slide the top object along the horizontal line $y=1$. The horizontal displacement of this object is given by $x$, and the trajectory of the bottom object (the path of least resistance) is called a tractix.

After sliding $x$ units horizontally, draw the line segment of length $1$ which is parallel to the string and which contains $(0,0)$ as one of its endpoints. The second point of this line segment lies on the unit circle. Draw a line through the circle endpoint and the point $(1,0)$. The $y$-intercept $b$ of this line is equal to $e^x$, and the point $(x,b)$ belongs to the graph of the exponential function $f$.

Here is an animation I made using GeoGebra: https://youtu.be/zzvwGl9WpX8

0

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.)

Max
  • 439
-4

Here's an "unusual" one: $e$ is the positive real number such that

$$ \sqrt{6\log\left(e\sqrt[4]{e}\sqrt[9]{e}\sqrt[16]{e}\sqrt[25]{e}\ldots\right)} = \pi. $$

Klangen
  • 5,075
  • Would you post some reference on this? This seems very interesting. – Michal Dvořák Nov 11 '18 at 21:24
  • 1
    @MichalDvořák - it's just representing $\sum \frac1{n^2} = \frac{\pi^2}6$ in a really obtuse way. And it doesn't really define $e$ at all, since the logarithm has to be defined in terms of some base, and the $e$ just needs to match the base. – Glen O Nov 12 '18 at 03:13
  • @GlenO Correct. I posted this as a "joke answer", so obviously this is not a definition. But does it deserve a downvote? – Klangen Nov 12 '18 at 08:08