A question regarding the definition of e

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of the mathematical constant ##e##, specifically the expression ##e=\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(1+\frac{1}{n})^n##. Participants are examining the choice of the variable 'n' in this context, questioning its implications and the reasoning behind its use despite the expression being applicable to a broader range of values.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the nature of 'n' as a bound variable versus a free variable, questioning the significance of its notation. Some discuss the sequence of values that the expression approaches as 'n' increases, while others consider the implications of defining concepts before their use in mathematical expressions.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with multiple perspectives being shared regarding the notation and definition of 'n'. Some participants provide insights into the nature of limits and sequences, while others raise questions about the logical structure of definitions in mathematics. There is no explicit consensus, but various interpretations and clarifications are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the expression is not defined for certain values of 'n', such as zero, and discuss the limitations of the formula's applicability across different domains of numbers.

SafiBTA
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


In writing the definition of ##e## i.e. ##e=\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(1+\frac{1}{n})^n##, why do we denote the variable by 'n' despite the fact that the formula holds for n∈(-∞,∞)? Is there any specific reason behind this notation i.e. does the variable have anything to do with positive integers (which we normally use 'n' for)?

Homework Equations


##e=\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(1+\frac{1}{n})^n##

The Attempt at a Solution


I see no clue as to why is this so.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The n in that expression for e is not a free variable. It is a bound variable. It makes no sense to talk about the formula holding for some particular value of n. The n in the formula has a limited scope and is not defined at all outside of that scope.

Have you ever encountered a formal definition for "limit"? In your coursework, have you encountered statements such as "there exists an x in R such that for all n in N, ..."
 
The limit describes a sequence of numbers that as n increases becomes closer and closer to e.

n=1 and the expr=2
n=2 and the expr=2.2
n=3 and the expr=2.37
n=4 and the expr=2.44
...
n approaches infinity expr approaches e
 
To get a bit more pedantic, the "limit" is the single, fixed numeric value (if one exists) that the sequence approaches.
 
SafiBTA said:
In writing the definition of ##e## i.e. ##e=\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(1+\frac{1}{n})^n##, why do we denote the variable by 'n' despite the fact that the formula holds for n∈(-∞,∞)? Is there any specific reason behind this notation i.e. does the variable have anything to do with positive integers (which we normally use 'n' for)?
By "formula" I presume you mean this expression: (1 + 1/n)n. Clearly it is not defined for n = 0. The "notation," as you called it, is a limit, and the expression whose limit is being taken has different values for different values of n (integer values). As n gets larger, the value of the expression (1 + 1/n)n gets closer to the number e.
 
SafiBTA said:

Homework Statement


In writing the definition of ##e## i.e. ##e=\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(1+\frac{1}{n})^n##, why do we denote the variable by 'n' despite the fact that the formula holds for n∈(-∞,∞)? Is there any specific reason behind this notation i.e. does the variable have anything to do with positive integers (which we normally use 'n' for)?

Homework Equations


##e=\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(1+\frac{1}{n})^n##

The Attempt at a Solution


I see no clue as to why is this so.

It is true that
e = \lim_{x \to \infty} \left( 1 + \frac{1}{x} \right)^x
but that is a theorem, rather than a definition.

The point is that concepts/objects need to be defined before they are used (in a strictly logical approach, at least), so that although one can define and understand ##a^n## for real ##a## and integer (or even rational) ##n##, ##a^x## for real ##x## is trickier and more involved to get at. Sometimes, the definitions related to ##a^x## proceed through the use of the number ##e## itself, where it is understood that this ##e## is the one obtained by the usual integer limit.
 
jedishrfu said:
The limit describes a sequence of numbers that as n increases becomes closer and closer to e.

n=1 and the expr=2
n=2 and the expr=2.2
n=3 and the expr=2.37
n=4 and the expr=2.44
...
n approaches infinity expr approaches
Suppose there is a bank A which gives 100%interest per annum , and bank Bgives 100 percent but compounded twice in a year,and bank C gives 100 percent per annum but compounded thrice(i,e every for months ) and so on...
Now Dollar 1 deposited in each of these banks will be 2,(1plus1/2)power2,(1plus1/3) power3 and so on .
Ultimately in this way a hypothetical bank which compounds interest every moment will give you back Dollars e!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K