1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Quick series check

  1. Aug 21, 2006 #1
    Hi, I've run into a bit of a problem. I don't know why I didn't resolve this issue when I first learned about series but the following is bugging me.

    e^x = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^\infty {\frac{{x^k }}{{k!}}}

    I also know that exp(0) = 1.

    But if I plug x = 0 into the above series, the term corresponding to k = 0, involves 0^0 which isn't defined as far as I can recall so I don't know how exp(0) = 1 comes about from plugging x = 0 into the above series. This is something I should know by now but I can't see why at the moment. Any help would be good thanks.
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 21, 2006 #2
    I read in a calculus textbook once, I think it might have been stewarts and it probably was since that what my calc 2 class used, but it said something along the lines of that when we work with series we take 0^0 to be equal to one.
  4. Aug 21, 2006 #3
    I guess that would make sense. However, if anyone has some different input, please feel free to post it in this thread.
  5. Aug 21, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    d_leet is correct, they are taking 0^0 to be defined as 1, it makes the notation a little simpler (it's not some kind of profound mathematical statement about 0^0).

    Some authors will avoid having to define 0^0 by writing the series as

    [tex]e^x = 1+\sum\limits_{k = 1}^\infty {\frac{{x^k }}{{k!}}} [/tex]

    and likewise for all series. This is a rare approach in modern first calculus type texts (if it exists at all).
  6. Aug 21, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Since 0^0 is not defined (there is no general consensus), I like to regard the 0^0 terms in a series as just a notation for the number 1. The authors were lazy and instead of writing

    [tex]1+\sum\limits_{k = 1}^\infty {\frac{{x^k }}{{k!}}} [/tex],

    they just wrote

    [tex]\sum\limits_{k = 0}^\infty {\frac{{x^k }}{{k!}}} [/tex]

    as a notation for the above series.
  7. Aug 21, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Another way to look at it is that 0^0 is not defined in general because the limit:

    [tex] \lim_{x \rightarrow 0, y \rightarrow 0} x^y[/tex]

    does not exist. This just means that the result you get depends on how x and y approach 0. For example, if you hold x=0 and let y approach 0, you get terms like 0^0.1, 0^0.01, 0^0.001, ..., which are all 0, so the limit is 0. But if you hold y=0 and let x approach 0, you get terms like 0.1^0, 0.01^0, 0.001^0, ..., which are all 1, so the limit is 1.

    That is why 0^0 as a symbol is not defined. But in your example, we clearly have the latter case above, where y=0 and x is approaching 0, and so we can safely say the limit is 1.
  8. Aug 22, 2006 #7
    Thanks for the input guys, much appreciated.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Quick series check
  1. Quick derivative check (Replies: 2)