Just as the title asks: I'm looking for a proof of Euler's identity without first proving the general case of $e^{ix} = \cos x + i\sin x$.
-
3What do you want to use as the starting point? That is, how are you defining $e^{ix}$? – vadim123 Apr 22 '13 at 16:59
-
I guess it's $e^{ix}=\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^\infty \dfrac{(ix)^n}{n!}$. – Philippe Malot Apr 22 '13 at 17:04
-
1And how do you define $\pi$? That might seem obvious, but defining it rigorously is not quite trivial. – Thomas Andrews Apr 22 '13 at 17:07
-
Join http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36/mathematics and explain what u mean. this q is in disscussion there. – ABC Apr 22 '13 at 17:08
-
I suspect that it is difficult to avoid dealing implicitly with $\cos x + i\sin x$ when $x$ is small to find the behavior, because the rigorous definition of $\pi$ as the "length" of a curve requires some sort of limiting behavior - looking at tiny arcs of the circle and estimating the lengths. – Thomas Andrews Apr 22 '13 at 18:38
-
Defining $e$ as a power series is okay, but I'd prefer to define it as a limit and work from there. As far as defining $\pi$ goes, the only totally formal definition I've worked with is the first positive zero of cosine, so this would seem counterproductive. Basically, I'll take any reasonable definition for $\pi$. – Julien Clancy Apr 22 '13 at 20:28
5 Answers
I outlined in a previous question a proof that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac{ix}{n}\right)^n = \cos x + i\sin x$$
That outline (about halfway through the answer) can be altered just to prove it for $x=\pi$ pretty directly. Basically:
$$\frac{\cos(\pi/n)+i\sin(\pi/n)}{1+i\pi/n}=1+g(n)$$
where $ng(n)\to 0$, so we can prove that:$$\left(\frac{\cos(\pi/n)+i\sin(\pi/n)}{1+i\pi/n}\right)^n\to 1$$
You can prove that $ng(n)\to 0$ geometrically. You essentially only need to prove that:
$$\left|\,\cos(\pi/n) - 1\right| = O(1/n^2)$$ and $$\left|\,\sin(\pi/n)-\pi/n\right| = O(1/n^2)$$
The first is easy to prove. The distance from $(\cos x,\sin x)$ to $(1,0)$ is $\sqrt{2-2\cos x}$ and $x$ is the length of the arc of the circle between those two points. So $$0\leq 1-\cos\pi/n\leq \frac{\pi^2}{2}\frac{1}{n^2}$$
The second requires more care. We can easily see $0\leq \sin\pi/n \leq \pi/n$ since $\sin \pi/n$ is the distance of $(\cos\pi/n,\sin\pi/n)$ to the real line, and $\pi/n$ is the length of a longer path to the real line.
Now, take the points $P=(1,0)$ and $Q=(\cos 2\pi/n,\sin 2\pi/n)$. Draw the tangents to the unit circles at these points and find their intersection, $R$. Then show that the length of the path $PRQ$ is $2\tan \pi/n$. This is a path "outside" the circle, so it must be greater than the path of length $2\pi/n$ along the circle between $P$ and $Q$, so we get inequality: $$\tan\pi/n \geq \pi/n$$ This gives us the inequality:
$$\frac{\pi}{n}\cos \pi/n \leq \sin\pi/n \leq\frac{\pi}n$$
Which means that $$|\pi/n-\sin\pi/n|\leq \frac{\pi}{n}(1-\cos\pi/n) = O(1/n^3)$$
- 186,215
-
-
1I'm not really happy with it as an answer to your question, since it easily generalizes to $e^{ix}$. But I do like this proof as a means to get to the implicit geometry of the result. – Thomas Andrews Apr 23 '13 at 13:49
In this answer, it is shown that $$ e^{ix}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac{ix}{n}\right)^n $$ is a point whose absolute value is $1$ and whose angle is $x$. No mention is made of sines and cosines until the end when converting from polar coordinates. Since $-1$ has absolute value $1$ and angle $\pi$, this would indicate that $$ e^{i\pi}=-1 $$ without first computing $e^{ix}=\cos(x)+i\sin(x)$.
Some have complained that the proof above, since it proves that $e^{ix}$ is the point with absolute value $1$ and angle $x$, actually proves $e^{ix}=\cos(x)+i\sin(x)$. Howver, since I've never seen a proof of $e^{i\pi}=-1$ that doesn't first, in essence, prove that $e^{ix}=\cos(x)+i\sin(x)$, this all seems like an exercise in obfuscation anyway. Here is a more carefully hidden version of the same argument.
Using this formulation of $e^{i\pi}$: $$ e^{i\pi}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac{i\pi}{n}\right)^n\tag{2} $$ For a complex number $z$, let $|z|$ be its magnitude and $\arg(z)$ be its angle. If it is not already known, only a small amount of algebra and trigonometry is needed to show that $$ \begin{align} |wz|&=|w|\cdot|z|\tag{3a}\\ \arg(wz)&=\arg(w)+\arg(z)\tag{3b} \end{align} $$ Induction then shows that \begin{align} |z^n|&=|z|^n\tag{4a}\\ \arg(z^n)&=n\arg(z)\tag{4b} \end{align} Let us take a closer look at $1+\dfrac{i\pi}{n}$. $$ \begin{align} \left|\,1+\frac{i\pi}{n}\,\right|&=\sqrt{1+\frac{\pi^2}{n^2}}\tag{5a}\\ \tan\left(\arg\left(1+\frac{i\pi}{n}\right)\right)&=\frac{\pi}{n}\tag{5b} \end{align} $$ Using $(4a)$, $(5a)$, and $(2)$, we get $$ \begin{align} |e^{i\pi}| &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left|\,1+\frac{i\pi}{n}\,\right|^n\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac{\pi^2}{n^2}\right)^{n/2}\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac{\pi^2}{n^2}\right)^{\frac{n^2}{2n}}\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}e^{\frac{\pi^2}{2n}}\\[12pt] &=1\tag{6} \end{align} $$ It can be shown that when $x$ is measured in radians $$ \lim_{x\to0}\frac{\tan(x)}{x}=1\tag{7} $$ Using $(4b)$, $(5b)$, and $(7)$, we get $$ \begin{align} \arg(e^{i\pi}) &=\lim_{n\to\infty}n\arg\left(1+\frac{i\pi}{n}\right)\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}n\arg\left(1+\frac{i\pi}{n}\right) \frac{\tan\left(\arg\left(1+\frac{i\pi}{n}\right)\right)}{\arg\left(1+\frac{i\pi} {n}\right)}\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}n\frac{\pi}{n}\\ &=\pi\tag{8} \end{align} $$ Using $(6)$ and $(8)$, we get that $e^{i\pi}$ has magnitude $1$ and angle $\pi$. That is, $$ e^{i\pi}=-1 $$
-
I'm not sure it is fair to say "without first computing $e^{ix}$... because your first statement is by definition showing that $e^{ix}=\cos x +i\sin x$ since that is how $\cos x$ and $\sin x$ are defined - $(\cos x,\sin x)$ is the point on the unit circle at angle $x$ counter-clockwise from $(1,0)$. – Thomas Andrews Apr 23 '13 at 14:04
-
@ThomasAndrews: I think we can call $-1$ the point with absolute value $1$ and argument $\pi$ without resorting to sines and cosines. The fact that $(\cos(\pi),\sin(\pi))$ is the same point is unavoidable. – robjohn Apr 23 '13 at 14:58
-
My point is that the first statement already proves $e^{ix}=\cos x +i\sin x$, you just avoided phrasing it that way. The definition of $\cos x$ and $\sin x$ is as the coordinates of the points on the unit circle when rotating $x$ radians, so you've just proved that $e^{ix}=\cos x+i\sin x$ and simply avoided stating it that way. – Thomas Andrews Apr 23 '13 at 15:04
-
@ThomasAndrews: If you are saying that it is not valid, for the purposes of this question, to prove that $e^{i\pi}=-1$ by showing that $e^{i\pi}$ has absolute value $1$ and argument $\pi$, then none of the answers presented so far really shows $e^{i\pi}=-1$ without showing $e^{ix}=\cos(x)+i\sin(x)$, and I can agree with that. – robjohn Apr 23 '13 at 15:57
-
Yes, I also think my answer isn't a valid answer to the question, as I mentioned in my comment. Your first line essentially references a proof that $e^{ix}=\cos x +i\sin x$. It's just that your answer asserts that you have avoided this, which is the nature of my complaint. Not a big deal - I don't think there is a real way to answer the poster's question - the nature of the beast is that it is true for all $x$, not just $\pi$. – Thomas Andrews Apr 23 '13 at 16:02
-
@ThomasAndrews: It's still cheating, but I've added a proof which hides things better. – robjohn Apr 23 '13 at 16:49
We shall use that $\exp(z_1+z_2)=\exp(z_1)\cdot\exp(z_2)$ for arbitrary $z_1$, $z_2\in{\mathbb C}$, and that $\bigl|e^{i\tau}\bigr|=1$ for real $t$. The labels $\sin$ and $\cos$ only appear as abbreviations for certain expressions, and no knowledge about these functions is implied.
Note that the series $$\sin t:={\rm Im}(e^{it})=t-{t^3\over 6}+\ldots, \quad \cos t:={\rm Re}(e^{it})=1-{t^2\over 2}+\ldots\tag{1}$$ are alternating for $|t|<1$. It follows that $$\sin 1>{5\over6}>{1\over\sqrt{2}}\ .$$ As $\sin 0=0$ and $t\mapsto e^{it}$ is continuous there is a $\tau\in\ ]0,1[\ $ with $$\sin\tau ={1\over\sqrt{2}}\ .$$ Since $\tau<1$ it follows from $(1)$ that $\cos\tau>0$, and $\bigl|e^{i\tau}\bigr|=1$ implies $\cos\tau=\sqrt{1-\sin^2\tau}={1\over\sqrt{2}}$.
Therefore $e^{i\tau}={1\over\sqrt{2}}(1+i)$, and putting $\pi:=4\tau$ we get $$e^{i\pi}=\left(e^{i\tau}\right)^4={1\over 4}(1+i)^4=-1\ .$$
- 232,144
-
That doesn't really show that $e^{i\pi}=-1$, only that $e^{iz}=-1$ for some $z\in\mathbb R$. Still, which you've just casually labeled $\pi$. Still, a nice start. Also, isn't $\tau\in(0,1)$? – Thomas Andrews Apr 22 '13 at 18:29
-
@Thomas Andrews: Thank you for the $\tau\in(0,1)$. – I don't know what's your definition of $\pi$. At any rate, a little bit more work would show that my $4\tau$ is the smallest $t>0$ with $e^{it}=-1$. – Christian Blatter Apr 22 '13 at 19:40
-
That doesn't help, since $\pi$ is not defined as such. You need to show that it is either the length of the half-circle arc or the area of the unit disk. – Thomas Andrews Apr 22 '13 at 19:42
Here’s another argument that has, I think, some gaps. Consider the map $p\colon\mathbb R\to\mathbb C$, by $p_t=e^{it}=\lim_n(1+it)^n$. It’s additive, in the sense that $p_{s+t}=p_sp_t$, and it maps into the unit circle, since $\overline{p_t}=p_{-t}=1/p_t$, so that $p_t\overline{p_t}=1$. So we have a map from the real numbers to the circle group. What’s the speed (not velocity) of the moving point $p_t$? Clearly (?) uniform, because of the additivity, and you can calculate the derivative at $t=0$ as $$ \lim_{h\to0}\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{(1+ih)^n-1}{h}\,, $$ clearly (?) equal to $i$, so that the speed is $|i|=1$. (Of course you can remove this question-mark just by appealing to to what we know about the derivative of the exponential function.) Moving around the circle at uniform unit speed, has to get halfway around in time $\pi$.
- 65,209
Just take the log of both sides:
$$\ln e^{i\pi}=\ln(-1)\Rightarrow i\pi\ln e=i\pi\Rightarrow i\pi=i\pi$$
- 7,927
-
2I downvoted because (a) you assumed that which you were trying to prove, and ended with a tautology, and (b) what is the ``natural logarithm'' of $e^i\pi$ or $-1$? In particular, logarithms of complex numbers are tricky things. You need to talk about branch cuts, et cetera. Which branch of $\log$ are you choosing? I feel that this answer as is would only serve to confuse the reader. I'm not trying to be harsh, I just wanted to communicate my reasons for downvoting. – J. Loreaux Apr 23 '13 at 06:37
-
@J.Loreaux $\ln z=\ln\left | z \right |+i;\text{arg};z$. Argument of $z=(-1)$ is $\pi$ – Martin Gales Apr 23 '13 at 06:50
-
This is exactly my point: $\arg(z)$ has infinitely many values, and $\pi$ is just one of them. You need to choose a particular branch of $\log$ in order to specify a single value like $\pi$. Furthermore, how would you define the argument. One easy way is through the chosen branch of the logarithm. – J. Loreaux Apr 23 '13 at 20:22