2

Gauss is reported to have said that if Euler's formula $e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0\,\!$ "was not immediately apparent to a student upon being told it, that student would never be a first-class mathematician."

How is someone supposed to see that this is true?

Ovi
  • 23,737

5 Answers5

3

$e^{i \theta} = \cos \theta + i \sin \theta$

Thus, on the complex plane, it makes the equation of a circle, with $\theta$ mapping to a point on the circle with angle $\theta$.

With $\theta = \pi$, that maps to the point of the circle on the negative real axis, namely the point $-1$.

MT_
  • 19,603
  • 9
  • 40
  • 81
  • But why is $e^{i \theta}=\cos(\theta)+i \sin(\theta)$? I highly doubt that the Gauss comment was about students figuring that one can simply plug $\pi$ into this.... – N. S. Mar 01 '14 at 03:48
  • @N.S. Since $i$ is orthogonal to $1$, it generates length-preserving transformations, i.e. rotations. – Chris Culter Mar 01 '14 at 03:54
  • @Chris Culter: That seems like it might be fine for multiplication, but not exponentiation: $iz$ rotates $z$ by $\pi/2$ radians, but knowing that $e^{it}$ for $t$ real also has to do with rotation seems less obvious. It seems you need a really special kind of intuitive grasp of what the exponential function means. – The_Sympathizer Mar 01 '14 at 04:00
  • Well I Don't believe there exists any explanation for it that is anything significantly simpler. This is already quite easy to understand with a basic knowledge of complex numbers. – MT_ Mar 01 '14 at 04:06
  • @mike4ty4 Right, I didn't mean that multiplication by $i$ preserves length. That happens to be true, but it isn't true of, say $2i$, which also generates rotations. I agree that the critical ingredient is the meaning of exponentiation. – Chris Culter Mar 01 '14 at 04:09
  • @N.S. The identity $e^{i\theta} = \cos \theta + i \sin \theta$ is clear if you know the Taylor series of those 3 functions. – Viktor Vaughn Mar 01 '14 at 04:40
  • @SpamIAm His point is that what would be the intuitive explanation of that fact, since OP is asking for an intuitive explanation which would fit what Gauss said. – MT_ Mar 01 '14 at 04:44
  • @user92774 In that case, the answers in this thread (particularly that of gowers) provide some intuition. – Viktor Vaughn Mar 01 '14 at 04:48
  • That is indeed a very nice explanation. I never heard that explanation before. – MT_ Mar 01 '14 at 04:55
3

Another approach is like this. Supposing that $f(x) = \cos x + i\sin x$ for all real $x$ we get $f'(x) = -\sin x + i\cos x = if(x)$. We treat $i$ as just a constant with property $i^{2} = 1$. Now put $g(x) = e^{-ix}f(x)$ so that $g'(x) = e^{-ix}if(x) -ie^{-ix}f(x) = 0$ so that $g(x)$ is a constant and hence $g(x) = g(0) = f(0) = 1$ and therefore $f(x) = e^{ix}$. putting $x = \pi$ we get $e^{i\pi} = f(\pi) = -1$.

The above derivation rests on the assumption that the symbol $e^{-ix}$ can be treated in a manner like $e^{kx}$ where $k$ is real and follows same rules of differentiation. This is something which needs a proper justification.


Update: After the comments user92774 I think I should put the above argument into a more intuitive manner. So let's start with $f(x) = \cos x + i\sin x$. This is a very common expression if one knows about polar form of a complex number. By differentiating it we get $f'(x) = if(x)$ so that the derivative is a constant multiple of the original function. From the existing knowledge of exponential/logarithm function we know that the function $e^{kx}$ possesses this property that $\{e^{kx}\}' = ke^{kx}$ for real constant $k$. It is now easy to compare this with $f(x)$ and extend our imagination and put $k = i$ and set $f(x) = e^{ix}$. This leads to a natural definition of $e^{ix}$ as $f(x)$ and $e^{x + iy} = e^{x}f(y)$ thereby extending the domain of exponential functions to entire complex plane.

  • 2
    This isn't very "intuitive" (as defined by the OP), this is just another way to derive it. – MT_ Mar 01 '14 at 04:42
  • @user92774: Well the intuition is to treat the symbol $e^{ix}$ just like $e^{kx}$ without defining $e^{ix}$ precisely and see what happens. Well what happens is that we get ${e^{ix}}' = ie^{ix}$ and next we try to figure out which function has the same property. By the way obviously just by looking at symbols $e, i, \pi, 0, 1$ you can't figure out a connection between them unless you have some theory of exponential/logarithmic and trigonometric functions. – Paramanand Singh Mar 01 '14 at 04:44
  • @user92774: The expression $\cos x + i\sin x$ naturally comes to mind if one knows anything about polar form of a complex number and it is a simple matter to differentiate $f(x)$ to get $if(x)$. But considering the above it is now easy to figure out the relation that $e^{ix} = f(x)$. – Paramanand Singh Mar 01 '14 at 04:48
  • I'm afraid that, after two paragraphs and and additional update, you lose the argument that "this is intuitive". Heh. :) – MPW Mar 01 '14 at 05:08
2

As I mentioned in the comments to another answer here, you need a "special kind of intuition about the exponential function". I believe I might have thought of one. It uses physical reasoning.

The exponential function, $e^x$, is a fixed point of the derivative. That is,

$$\frac{d}{dx} e^x = e^x$$.

Assume it's also true for $x = it$, $t$ rael. By the chain rule, $\frac{d}{dt} e^{it} = ie^{it}$. You can think of this as "position/time", i.e. velocity in the plane. Differentiating it again gives acceleration. The acceleration is $-e^{it}$. This is $i$ times the velocity, therefore it lies at right angles to it. So at every point in time, the acceleration is always at right angles to the velocity, from which you might be able to intuit that it moves on a circular path.

You can show that $|e^{it}| = 1$ by taking the conjugate $\overline{e^{it}} = e^{-it}$ (which follows from the derivative equation by $\frac{d}{dt} \overline{e^{it}} = \overline{\frac{d}{dt} e^{it}} = \overline{ie^{it}} = \overline{i} \overline{e^{it}} = -i \overline{e^{it}}$, so $\overline{e^{it}}$ satisfies $f'(t) = -i f(t)$, which is the same equation as $e^{-it}$ satisfies. Noting that this differential equation is first-order linear and $e^0 = 1$, the equality $\overline{e^{it}} = e^{-it}$ is obtained.) and multiplying to get the square of the absolute value, $e^{it} e^{-it} = e^{it + -it} = e^0 = 1$. This alone shows the motion is on a circle, but the constant magnitude of velocity and acceleration show that it is circular orbital motion about the origin, and not, say, chaotically bouncing back and forth along the circle or some other weirdness like that.

Then it's not unreasonable to imagine that $t$ is an angle, and $e^{i \pi} = -1$, from which the formula follows. Actually, from the knowledge of the constant and equal magnitude of the velocity and acceleration and the fact the acceleration is always at right angles to the velocity, you can use physical reasoning to arrive at Euler's formula directly, i.e. $e^{it} = \cos(t) + i \sin(t)$.

1

We have that $\lim_{n \to \infty} (1 + \frac{i \pi}{n})^n = -1$. As $n \to \infty$, $\sqrt{1 + (\frac{\pi}{n})^2} \to 1$, so the first $(1 + \frac{i \pi}{n})$ has magnitude $1$ and further multiplications of it by itself won't change its magnitude.

Furthermore, we have that $\lim_{x \to 0} \tan x = x$, so the argument of $(1 + \frac{i \pi}{n})$ is $\frac{\pi}{n}$ as $n \to \infty$. Since we multiply $n$ times, the argument is $\pi$.

So $e^{i \pi}$ is a complex number with magnitude $1$ and argument $\pi$, namely $-1$.

Personally I find this to be very intuitive, but it won't be something you can figure out without some rudimentary knowledge of complex numbers.

user99185
  • 287
  • There's a lot of things in this that are confusing. "We have that..." usually implies something is already known. "... so the first..." is just not true - the first number of that form is $1+i\pi$, which is not magnitude $1$. – Thomas Andrews Mar 01 '14 at 05:13
  • Finally, it is wrong to say $\lim_{x\to 0} \tan x = x$. There cannot be any $x$ as the result of that limit. You can say that $\lim_{x\to 0}\frac{\tan x}{x} = 1$. But as written, it is wrong. – Thomas Andrews Mar 01 '14 at 05:15
0

You can easily show geometrically, that if rotation+scaling is a multiplication, if the y axis is mapped onto $i$. So scaling rotation of r,a * R,A gives Rr, a+A. One can easily suppose a is an exponent, but the jump to radians and e needs series analysis. It is possible to show that $i^2=-1$.

Geometric proof of Argand Diagram

In the diagram, we wish to multiply R cis(A) by r cis(a), demonstrating that rotation and scaling comes out as complex multiplication.

We start with the triangle OAB being r cis(a), scaled by C, so OA is Cc, OB is Cs, and OB is Cr. Extend AB to C, so that BCD is a copy of OAB, scaled by S: ie BD=Sc, CD=Ss, and BD is Sr. The triangle OBD is a copy of C:S:R, scaled by a factor of r. The side OB is rC, the side BD is rS, and OD is rR.

We have now shown that OD is the point at rR cis(a+A).

One can calculate the point D as $Cc-Ss + i(Cs + sS)$. But the product of C+iS and c+is is $Cc+Ssi^2 + i(Cs+sC)$. Since these are equal, we get $i^2=-1$.

This is a geometric proof of the argand diagram.

While we have shown that complex multiplication corresponds to dialation and rotation, it is not immediately obvious that this is $e^{i\theta}$. One has to resort to the expansion of series of cosine and sine, and exponential, to see this is the case.