Solving the Mystery of exp(0)=1 in e^x Series

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benny
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Series
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the mathematical expression for the exponential function, e^x, represented as a power series: e^x = ∑(k=0 to ∞) (x^k / k!). The confusion arises from the term 0^0 when evaluating exp(0), which is defined as 1. Participants agree that in the context of power series, 0^0 is conventionally treated as 1 to simplify notation, despite its general indeterminacy. This consensus allows for the series to be expressed as e^x = 1 + ∑(k=1 to ∞) (x^k / k!), avoiding the undefined nature of 0^0.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of power series and their convergence.
  • Familiarity with the exponential function and its properties.
  • Basic knowledge of limits and indeterminate forms in calculus.
  • Awareness of mathematical notation conventions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of power series and their convergence criteria.
  • Learn about the definition and implications of indeterminate forms in calculus.
  • Explore alternative representations of the exponential function in different contexts.
  • Investigate the historical and modern approaches to defining 0^0 in mathematics.
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematicians, and educators seeking clarity on the behavior of power series and the treatment of indeterminate forms in mathematical expressions.

Benny
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
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.

<br /> e^x = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^\infty {\frac{{x^k }}{{k!}}} <br />

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:
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
I guess that would make sense. However, if anyone has some different input, please feel free to post it in this thread.
 
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

e^x = 1+\sum\limits_{k = 1}^\infty {\frac{{x^k }}{{k!}}}

and likewise for all series. This is a rare approach in modern first calculus type texts (if it exists at all).
 
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

1+\sum\limits_{k = 1}^\infty {\frac{{x^k }}{{k!}}},

they just wrote

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

as a notation for the above series.
 
Another way to look at it is that 0^0 is not defined in general because the limit:

\lim_{x \rightarrow 0, y \rightarrow 0} x^y

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.
 
Thanks for the input guys, much appreciated.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K