- #1

- 235

- 0

Why should it be obvious that:

e raised to i (pi) = -1

e raised to i (pi) = -1

Last edited:

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Pjpic
- Start date

- #1

- 235

- 0

Why should it be obvious that:

e raised to i (pi) = -1

e raised to i (pi) = -1

Last edited:

- #2

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 9,625

- 8

[tex]\exp\left(i\theta\right) = \cos\theta + i\sin\theta[/tex]

- #3

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 7,892

- 15

Remember that pi (rad) is 180deg so the arrow moves 180deg anti clockwise and points to -1 on the real axis.

- #4

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 10,106

- 136

Why should it be obvious that:

e raised to i (pi) = -1

It is not obvious at all.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #5

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 43,010

- 973

It is **after** you have Euler's formula!

I once actually did have a professor once say "now it is obvious that" as he was writing something on the board, stop and say "now why is that obvious?", think for a minute and then continue, "Yes, it is obvious!"

I once actually did have a professor once say "now it is obvious that" as he was writing something on the board, stop and say "now why is that obvious?", think for a minute and then continue, "Yes, it is obvious!"

Last edited by a moderator:

- #6

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 10,106

- 136

Hmm..why did you edit into my comment something I didn't say in this context, HallsofIvy?It isafteryou have Euler's formula!

Sure,if you define the complex exponential by Euler's formula, thenitis "obvious" that the result follows.

However, it still remains unobvious, prior to proving, say, De Moivre's formula, that exponentials should have anything to do with trig functions in their complex forms.

- #7

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 43,010

- 973

I am so sorry. I meant to edit MINE and accidently clicked on the wrong button!Hmm..why did you edit into my comment something I didn't say in this context, HallsofIvy?

Sure,if you define the complex exponential by Euler's formula, then it is "obvious" that the result follows.

However, it still remains unobvious, prior to proving, say, De Moivre's formula, that exponentials should have anything to do with trig functions in their complex forms.

- #8

- 235

- 0

Remember that pi (rad) is 180deg so the arrow moves 180deg anti clockwise and points to -1 on the real axis.

I wonder if you can explain it in english. Gauss said that it would be obvious to person with a future in math (I don't even have a past in math). But it seem like 2.71 to 3.14 = about 23. How does using the imaginary number make it equal -1?

- #9

- 2,227

- 9

Sure,if you define the complex exponential by Euler's formula, then it is "obvious" that the result follows.

However, it still remains unobvious, prior to proving, say, De Moivre's formula, that exponentials should have anything to do with trig functions in their complex forms.

personally, i think that De Moivre's follows from Euler's. the more fundamental formula is Euler's.

anyway, outside of calculus, it

but someone had to have the insight for seeing it first, and Euler, whom some folks think is the "Einstein" of mathematics, was the first to see it. now, it's sort of obvious.

- #10

- 2,227

- 9

I wonder if you can explain it in english. Gauss said that it would be obvious to person with a future in math (I don't even have a past in math). But it seem like 2.71 to 3.14 = about 23. How does using the imaginary number make it equal -1?

even though sometimes it is inaccurate (but not this time), Wikipedia can be your friend. please check out the proofs in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_formula . you need to remember that

- #11

- 57

- 1

[tex] \[e^{i\pi} = i^2 \][/tex] and therefore

[tex] \[i = e^{\frac{i\pi}{2}}\] [/tex]

[tex] \[\frac{\ln i}{i} = \frac{\pi}{2}\][/tex]

- #12

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 10,106

- 136

A) It remains unobvious for every new generation.personally, i think that De Moivre's follows from Euler's. the more fundamental formula is Euler's.

anyway, outside of calculus, itisunobvious that exponential functions have any relationship to trig functions. but once you start thinking about derivatives, that the derivative of an exponential is another exponential (with the same "[itex]\alpha[/itex]" inside) and the derivative of a sinusoidal function is another sinusoid (with the same "[itex]\omega[/itex]" inside), that you might start to wonder that there is a connection. then, once you get to Taylor or Maclaurin Series, and you compare the series for sin() and cos() and e^{x}, then it becomes less and less unobivious.

but someone had to have the insight for seeing it first, and Euler, whom some folks think is the "Einstein" of mathematics, was the first to see it. now, it's sort of obvious.

B) That it becomes obvious as you progress in your mathematical understanding, does not lessen its initial unobviosity

C) The standard induction proof for De Moivre's formula is simple to perform, but its result is surprising. Hence, it is unobvious.

Share:

- Replies
- 35

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 66

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 953

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 868

- Replies
- 56

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 20

- Views
- 680

- Replies
- 19

- Views
- 577

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 490

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 752

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 529