Talk:Euler's Formula

I vote we remove the boxes around the formulas on this page. Who's with me? --Cynic 14:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm for that --Joe 14:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks better, I think. Also, I think the derivative of the quotient expression ought to be illustrated as well.--MathMonkeyMan 20:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Was the last box left in intentionally? It actually might be a good idea to box the final step in all the proofs so it's clear when you have reached the end and you can see what was being proved. Or add a "Theorem:" line to the beginning of each proof.--Cynic 21:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the boxes are a good idea, I vote we leave them.

Euler's formula can be taken as a definition rather than something one can prove: the exponential is defined for real numbers, and one wants to extend it to complex numbers in some way. You can prove that the expression must be that, but one should clearly state the assumptions; for example, that the only holomorphic extension of the exponential to the complex plane must be given by that expression, or that the only continuous extension is given by that expression. These are different results, and here it is not clear what the assumptions are. When you want to prove that $e^{i\theta}$ has a certain expression, what is your definition of $e^{i\theta}$?--Cañizo 12:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that when this page was written, the site was still young. It was only a month or two ago that real analysis was tackled properly, and until you've defined some basic stuff from calculus, you can't really define $e$, let alone $e^{i \theta}$.

Once I've got some of the boring topology out of the way (nearly as boring as that real analysis stuff which is so utterly tedious it makes my teeth itch) I'm going to be in a position to take on complex analysis a bit more seriously than I have done up till now, and I hope to bring it into line with the other stuff. Yes I know you don't rate my work on analysis much, no nor do I, I'm taking a step back before I think about how best to rationalise the pages on continuity, convergence and limits. Do we "just" give a topological definition and blandly use the fact that $\R$ and $\C$ are topological spaces? Or do we want to provide proofs, definitions and the like for all stages of mathematical understanding? My view is the latter. --Matt Westwood 21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't take me wrong, I just say this to make the page better... For the moment I'm enthusiastic about it, and find it real fun to edit things, then find out that other people edited them, try to discuss about this or that... I can disagree on how to best write things, but that's the point! A lot of disagreement may converge to something nice. Of course this is just starting, and the questions you mention have to be taken one by one.--Cañizo 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Added a "proof" which works more as a definition of the (complex) logarithm function than a proof itself. It's wordy and long because it appeals to intuition and common insights about complex numbers.--Misael.G.Mx 00:01, 6 December 2011 (CST)
 * It certainly opens up a few avenues which we haven't got round to doing yet (I was going to get round to doing complex analysis once I'd covered the appropriate topological background but never got back to it). Mind, it needs a lot of tidying up and serious restructuring. "Wordy and long" is not the usual style that ProofWiki's philosophy is based on. It's got definitions, lemmas, more lemmas, subproofs, who knows what-all, and all of those really belong on their own pages. Lemmas are often useful somewhere else not just in the proof they are raised. And there's some of colloquial language used grammatically inaccurately, which makes it look unprofessional. I'm also not too sure about circularity. However, I'm not in the mood for going over it at the moment, I'm doing other stuff and (my usual complaint) I'm seriously mentally exhausted by the day job at the moment. If anyone else wants to take this one on, feel free. --prime mover 15:19, 6 December 2011 (CST)
 * I too was worried about circularity, so I've done some tidying up of some sections.
 * 1. the definition of the argument
 * 2. the definition of the polar form of complex numbers
 * 3. the proof that the argument of the product is the sum of the arguments.
 * If I didn't mess up, Euler's formula now is equivalent to the definition of the logarithm of complex numbers, which is now based on 3. which is based on 2. which is based on 1. (i.e. the definition of argument is the most fundamental concept). I guess this all could go to the section for the definition of logarithm of complex numbers, which (as now) states the definition without any justification whatsoever (or any mention of Euler's formula). BTW, this "proof" is useless if we accept that definitions can be given without any intuitive or operational justification; which I guess is reasonable, since proofwiki is not a textbook. I'd still argue that the proof based on properties of the argument is intuitive and in a sense elementary, since it doesn't use taylor series and maybe, if more thought is given to it, it can be done on purely arithmetic-geometric arguments.
 * Also, English is not my first language, so the unprofessional writing will probably have to be fixed by someone else; sorry about that. Good luck, I'm eager to see the evolution of all this.--Misael.G.Mx 16:52, 6 December 2011 (CST)
 * I don't understand what you mean "if we accept that definitions can be given without any intuitive or operational justification" - when a definition is given on this site, it is alwys to be defined in terms of previously defined entities, and the existence of the entity is always to be backed up by some justification. In intent it is to be more rigorous than a textbook, which (unless about the foundations of logic and mathematics) always has to start from some basic assumptions. On ProofWiki everything should be traceable right back to the source axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and the axioms of propositional logic. (There are some gaps which still need filling, but we have reason to be pleased with what we have done so far.) --prime mover 17:05, 6 December 2011 (CST)
 * Ok, sorry for the broad generalization. What I mean is that the logarithm of $z$ can be defined straightforwardly as $\log{z}=i \arg{z} + \left\vert {z} \right\vert$. Notice this is defined on terms of the previously defined entities $i$, $\arg$, and $\left\vert {z} \right\vert$, and it's clear that it exists; yet it has a major problem: it makes Euler's formula trivial. We can all agree that Euler's formula is not trivial: it summarizes deep and rich mathematical insight. Where should that insight be placed on proofwiki? That's what I mean by "textbook" and "intuitive justification": in a textbook, the quest for a $\log$ function precedes it's definition; it's not about rigor, it's about clarity. So, erase this last proof from Euler's Formula page and write up the justification on the definition of the logarithm?
 * Basically: yes. That's what I mean about circularity: the plan would be to derive the definition of the logarithm from the complex exponential.--prime mover 00:27, 7 December 2011 (CST)

First Proof
Hey, the first proof is bothering me, as it doesn't address the constant of integration or the domain of $\ln$. Wikipedia has a version of the proof, though it skips steps, that shows that both sides of Euler's Formula satisfy:
 * $D_z f\left({z}\right) = i \cdot f\left({z}\right)$, $f\left({0}\right) = 1$

and that the solution to the above is unique. This is similar to the second proof. This has the advantage of not needing to address $\ln$ at all. Should I replace it? I don't think it's worth adding as another proof because of its similarity to the other ones. I also added half of the same proof commented out trying to address the problems, but I got stuck. --GFauxPas 08:24, 7 December 2011 (CST)

A proof based on De Moivres formula
Hey I'm new here. I want to add this simple, but maybe overlooked, proof. Whats the etiquette here? I don't want to tread on anybody's toes. May I just go ahead and add it to the article, or is there discussion first?

Eulers formula, for real x, may be obtained from De Moivres formula, for integer n,
 * $ (\cos_\theta + i \sin_\theta)^n = \cos_{n \theta} + i \sin_{n \theta} $

Let $$ \theta = \frac{x}{n}$$, and take the limit as n tends to infinity;


 * $ \lim_{n \to \infty}((\cos_{\frac{x}{n}} + i \sin_{\frac{x}{n}})^n = \cos_{\frac{n x}{n}} + i \sin_{\frac{n x}{n}}) $

Using the power series expansions,
 * $ \cos_{\frac{x}{n}} = 1 + \frac{0}{n} + \frac{?}{n^2} + ...$
 * $ \sin_{\frac{x}{n}} = 0 + \frac{x}{n} + \frac{?}{n^2} + ...$

gives,
 * $\cos_{\frac{x}{n}} + i \sin_{\frac{x}{n}} = 1 + \frac{i x}{n} + \frac{?}{n^2} + ...$

In the limit of the binomial expansion of $$(\cos_{\frac{x}{n}} + i \sin_{\frac{x}{n}})^n$$, it can be shown that the sum of all the terms arising from $$\frac{?}{n^2}$$ and higher power terms will go to zero as n goes to infinity. So,
 * $ \lim_{n \to \infty}((\cos_{\frac{x}{n}} + i \sin_{\frac{x}{n}})^n) = \lim_{n \to \infty}((1 + \frac{i x}{n})^n) = \cos_x + i \sin_x$

From the definition of exponentiation for complex numbers,
 * $ \lim_{n \to \infty}(1+\frac{z}{n})^n = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{z^k}{k!} = e^z $

so where $$z = i x$$
 * $ \lim_{n \to \infty}(1 + \frac{i x}{n})^n = e^{i x} = \cos_x + i \sin_x$

Thpigdog (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Something wrong with :$$ $$, it wants to centre the formulas.

Thepigdog (talk) (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See the house rules and help files; in particular: Help:LaTeX Editing. (It occurs to me we may want to make this a higher visibility page than it is, as finding this information is not obvious.) In particular note that MathJax, the $\LaTeX$ rendition engine, is not happy with "math" tags, and "dollar" is to be used instead. There does exist some backward compatibility so that "math" doesn't irretrievably crash the wiki :-) but our house style is such that "math" is replaced with "dollar" whenever we find it.


 * As for the proof itself, it appears not to add to what we already have. We have already got a power series expansion proof (Proof 3), so just putting n=1 into your proof instantly gets you where you want to go without needing to go near nth powers. It seems to go off on a limb and come back down that same limb for no reason.


 * Maybe I'm not getting its subtleties, but then I'm not a subtle man. --prime mover (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)