How do complex number exponents actually work? [duplicate]
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Complex Exponent of Complex Numbers
2 answers
I know Euler's formula and how to take complex exponents, but in it it's $e$ to an imaginary angle, not a number, it seems. From my understanding pi itself is not an angle, but $pi$ radians is. And since cosine can only take in an angle, or at least a representation of one, and the variable is the same everywhere in Euler's formula, the exponent should be an angle and not a number. The question is then raised could I then say $e^{180i}=-1$? Surely this has a single numerical value though, right?
I've been bothered by this for a long time. Am I wrong or how can I take an exponent with a complex number?
Edit for the duplicate: I understand how to take them and how they're supposed work and be justifyed/proved, but raising something to the power of an angle which is what I thought was meant to be happening made me question how they actually worked that could allow this.
complex-numbers
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by Dietrich Burde, Lord Shark the Unknown, A. Pongrácz, Cesareo, José Carlos Santos Jan 19 at 9:32
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Complex Exponent of Complex Numbers
2 answers
I know Euler's formula and how to take complex exponents, but in it it's $e$ to an imaginary angle, not a number, it seems. From my understanding pi itself is not an angle, but $pi$ radians is. And since cosine can only take in an angle, or at least a representation of one, and the variable is the same everywhere in Euler's formula, the exponent should be an angle and not a number. The question is then raised could I then say $e^{180i}=-1$? Surely this has a single numerical value though, right?
I've been bothered by this for a long time. Am I wrong or how can I take an exponent with a complex number?
Edit for the duplicate: I understand how to take them and how they're supposed work and be justifyed/proved, but raising something to the power of an angle which is what I thought was meant to be happening made me question how they actually worked that could allow this.
complex-numbers
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by Dietrich Burde, Lord Shark the Unknown, A. Pongrácz, Cesareo, José Carlos Santos Jan 19 at 9:32
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
1
$begingroup$
What difference do you see between an "angle" and a "number"?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:32
1
$begingroup$
Something that will help you understand this is that there is no difference between "pi" and "pi radians" because radians are not actually a unit. Imagine a perfect slice removed from a perfectly circular pie. The straight edge of the slice is the radius of the pie, let's say, 13cm. The curved edge of the slice is a circular arc. Let's suppose it is exactly 14cm in your slice. The ratio of 14cm/13cm is 14/13 -- the units cancel. And that is how many radians the angle formed by your slice of pie at the center of the pie is.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:09
1
$begingroup$
If your slice is a quarter of the pie, and the pie radius is 13cm, then the arc will be 13pi/2 cm, and the ratio (13pi / 2) cm / 13cm is pi/2. NO UNITS. We only call this ratio "radians" as a convenience; radians actually have no units at all. Radians are just unitless numbers like any other number. They are useful for measuring angles because the ratio of the length of the radius to the arc is invariant under any scale; if you make the radius twice as big, and you make the arc twice as big too, the angle doesn't change, and obviously the ratio doesn't either.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:11
2
$begingroup$
So, do not think of the angle in the exponent as being an angle at all. Think of it as being the ratio of the arc length to the radius length, and it will all make sense.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:15
2
$begingroup$
I don't think this should be regarded as a duplicate question. The post maybe is not very well summarized in the title and that creates some confusion.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:23
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Complex Exponent of Complex Numbers
2 answers
I know Euler's formula and how to take complex exponents, but in it it's $e$ to an imaginary angle, not a number, it seems. From my understanding pi itself is not an angle, but $pi$ radians is. And since cosine can only take in an angle, or at least a representation of one, and the variable is the same everywhere in Euler's formula, the exponent should be an angle and not a number. The question is then raised could I then say $e^{180i}=-1$? Surely this has a single numerical value though, right?
I've been bothered by this for a long time. Am I wrong or how can I take an exponent with a complex number?
Edit for the duplicate: I understand how to take them and how they're supposed work and be justifyed/proved, but raising something to the power of an angle which is what I thought was meant to be happening made me question how they actually worked that could allow this.
complex-numbers
$endgroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Complex Exponent of Complex Numbers
2 answers
I know Euler's formula and how to take complex exponents, but in it it's $e$ to an imaginary angle, not a number, it seems. From my understanding pi itself is not an angle, but $pi$ radians is. And since cosine can only take in an angle, or at least a representation of one, and the variable is the same everywhere in Euler's formula, the exponent should be an angle and not a number. The question is then raised could I then say $e^{180i}=-1$? Surely this has a single numerical value though, right?
I've been bothered by this for a long time. Am I wrong or how can I take an exponent with a complex number?
Edit for the duplicate: I understand how to take them and how they're supposed work and be justifyed/proved, but raising something to the power of an angle which is what I thought was meant to be happening made me question how they actually worked that could allow this.
This question already has an answer here:
Complex Exponent of Complex Numbers
2 answers
complex-numbers
complex-numbers
edited Jan 19 at 12:45
Benjamin Thoburn
asked Jan 18 at 19:27
Benjamin ThoburnBenjamin Thoburn
350213
350213
marked as duplicate by Dietrich Burde, Lord Shark the Unknown, A. Pongrácz, Cesareo, José Carlos Santos Jan 19 at 9:32
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Dietrich Burde, Lord Shark the Unknown, A. Pongrácz, Cesareo, José Carlos Santos Jan 19 at 9:32
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
1
$begingroup$
What difference do you see between an "angle" and a "number"?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:32
1
$begingroup$
Something that will help you understand this is that there is no difference between "pi" and "pi radians" because radians are not actually a unit. Imagine a perfect slice removed from a perfectly circular pie. The straight edge of the slice is the radius of the pie, let's say, 13cm. The curved edge of the slice is a circular arc. Let's suppose it is exactly 14cm in your slice. The ratio of 14cm/13cm is 14/13 -- the units cancel. And that is how many radians the angle formed by your slice of pie at the center of the pie is.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:09
1
$begingroup$
If your slice is a quarter of the pie, and the pie radius is 13cm, then the arc will be 13pi/2 cm, and the ratio (13pi / 2) cm / 13cm is pi/2. NO UNITS. We only call this ratio "radians" as a convenience; radians actually have no units at all. Radians are just unitless numbers like any other number. They are useful for measuring angles because the ratio of the length of the radius to the arc is invariant under any scale; if you make the radius twice as big, and you make the arc twice as big too, the angle doesn't change, and obviously the ratio doesn't either.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:11
2
$begingroup$
So, do not think of the angle in the exponent as being an angle at all. Think of it as being the ratio of the arc length to the radius length, and it will all make sense.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:15
2
$begingroup$
I don't think this should be regarded as a duplicate question. The post maybe is not very well summarized in the title and that creates some confusion.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:23
|
show 3 more comments
1
$begingroup$
What difference do you see between an "angle" and a "number"?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:32
1
$begingroup$
Something that will help you understand this is that there is no difference between "pi" and "pi radians" because radians are not actually a unit. Imagine a perfect slice removed from a perfectly circular pie. The straight edge of the slice is the radius of the pie, let's say, 13cm. The curved edge of the slice is a circular arc. Let's suppose it is exactly 14cm in your slice. The ratio of 14cm/13cm is 14/13 -- the units cancel. And that is how many radians the angle formed by your slice of pie at the center of the pie is.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:09
1
$begingroup$
If your slice is a quarter of the pie, and the pie radius is 13cm, then the arc will be 13pi/2 cm, and the ratio (13pi / 2) cm / 13cm is pi/2. NO UNITS. We only call this ratio "radians" as a convenience; radians actually have no units at all. Radians are just unitless numbers like any other number. They are useful for measuring angles because the ratio of the length of the radius to the arc is invariant under any scale; if you make the radius twice as big, and you make the arc twice as big too, the angle doesn't change, and obviously the ratio doesn't either.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:11
2
$begingroup$
So, do not think of the angle in the exponent as being an angle at all. Think of it as being the ratio of the arc length to the radius length, and it will all make sense.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:15
2
$begingroup$
I don't think this should be regarded as a duplicate question. The post maybe is not very well summarized in the title and that creates some confusion.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:23
1
1
$begingroup$
What difference do you see between an "angle" and a "number"?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:32
$begingroup$
What difference do you see between an "angle" and a "number"?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:32
1
1
$begingroup$
Something that will help you understand this is that there is no difference between "pi" and "pi radians" because radians are not actually a unit. Imagine a perfect slice removed from a perfectly circular pie. The straight edge of the slice is the radius of the pie, let's say, 13cm. The curved edge of the slice is a circular arc. Let's suppose it is exactly 14cm in your slice. The ratio of 14cm/13cm is 14/13 -- the units cancel. And that is how many radians the angle formed by your slice of pie at the center of the pie is.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:09
$begingroup$
Something that will help you understand this is that there is no difference between "pi" and "pi radians" because radians are not actually a unit. Imagine a perfect slice removed from a perfectly circular pie. The straight edge of the slice is the radius of the pie, let's say, 13cm. The curved edge of the slice is a circular arc. Let's suppose it is exactly 14cm in your slice. The ratio of 14cm/13cm is 14/13 -- the units cancel. And that is how many radians the angle formed by your slice of pie at the center of the pie is.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:09
1
1
$begingroup$
If your slice is a quarter of the pie, and the pie radius is 13cm, then the arc will be 13pi/2 cm, and the ratio (13pi / 2) cm / 13cm is pi/2. NO UNITS. We only call this ratio "radians" as a convenience; radians actually have no units at all. Radians are just unitless numbers like any other number. They are useful for measuring angles because the ratio of the length of the radius to the arc is invariant under any scale; if you make the radius twice as big, and you make the arc twice as big too, the angle doesn't change, and obviously the ratio doesn't either.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:11
$begingroup$
If your slice is a quarter of the pie, and the pie radius is 13cm, then the arc will be 13pi/2 cm, and the ratio (13pi / 2) cm / 13cm is pi/2. NO UNITS. We only call this ratio "radians" as a convenience; radians actually have no units at all. Radians are just unitless numbers like any other number. They are useful for measuring angles because the ratio of the length of the radius to the arc is invariant under any scale; if you make the radius twice as big, and you make the arc twice as big too, the angle doesn't change, and obviously the ratio doesn't either.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:11
2
2
$begingroup$
So, do not think of the angle in the exponent as being an angle at all. Think of it as being the ratio of the arc length to the radius length, and it will all make sense.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:15
$begingroup$
So, do not think of the angle in the exponent as being an angle at all. Think of it as being the ratio of the arc length to the radius length, and it will all make sense.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:15
2
2
$begingroup$
I don't think this should be regarded as a duplicate question. The post maybe is not very well summarized in the title and that creates some confusion.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:23
$begingroup$
I don't think this should be regarded as a duplicate question. The post maybe is not very well summarized in the title and that creates some confusion.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:23
|
show 3 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A number of people are giving fairly complex answers (no pun intended) about exponentiation, but I want to address a much simpler misunderstanding in your answer, which should hopefully clear up some of the issues.
And since cosine can only take in an angle
No, the trig functions definitely take numbers. They're related to the circle, in that they're cyclic, and the "width" of their repetition is exactly 2π, which happens to be the circumference of a circle when you measure it in radians. But the argument to trig functions aren't angles except by convention.
The question is then raised could I then say e180i=−1?
180 isn't equal to π, any more than it's equal to 50 just because 180 degrees is 50% of circle. 180 degrees is equal to π radians, but since the exponentiation operator also takes numbers, not angles, that equivalence between angle units isn't relevant.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So radians, degrees, etc are scalars with radian=1. Saying trig functions are functions of geometric angles is not always true but it can be if the number input is a function of an angle. Do I understand correctly?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:29
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn, I would even go further then that. After all, even, say, curves in $mathbb R^2$ are just metaphores (isomorphisms) based on the idea of associating couples of numbers that satisfy certain equations with coordinates of points in the $xy$-plane. Identifying things that are just connected by an isomorphism can be useful at times, but at others misleading. That is why I think the basic algebraic relation between numbers should always be clarified.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:33
$begingroup$
@Matteo I'm just beggining category theory and isomorphisms and stuff and have made that relation with graphs and totally agree... I see my mistake now. So is a radian equal to 1 or isomorphic to 1?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:39
$begingroup$
@Matteo Isomorphic because they satisfy the same universal property? Although many (infinite) numbers are associated are associated with a single angle so you'd need fibers, or something?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn I was using the word isomorphism in a very loose sense. The idea of a mapping between complex structures that preserves some properties. You like to think of the argument of $cos(cdot )$ as if it were the measure of an angle, but you can even think of ratios between hypotenuse and side of a right-angled triangle, at least on a subset of the domain, or as the abscissa giving a certain arc lengh on a semicircle (as you saw in my answer). What is the most comfortable metaphore when you want to extend your reasoning to complex numbers?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is more an answer to the title of your question. A possible (and perhaps the standard) way of properly defining things is as follows. See any reasonable rigorous textbook on analysis for the proofs.
First define the exponential function $exp : mathbb{C} rightarrow mathbb{C}$, by the absolutely convergent series $exp(z) := sum_{n=0}^{infty}{ frac{z^n}{n!}}$. It is easy to prove that $exp$, restricted to the real line, takes real values. A bit more work shows that $exp$, restricted to the real line, is strictly incresing and everywhere $>0$ and that $exp(mathbb{R}) = (0, infty)$. It follows that there is a bijetive function $log{}:(0, infty) rightarrow mathbb{R}$, the inverse of $x mapsto exp(x)$ from $mathbb{R} rightarrow (0, infty)$. The number $e$ is defined as $e: = exp(1)$. For any positive real number $a$ and any complex number $z$, one defines $a^z$ by $a^z := exp(log(a) z)$. Hence, by definition, $e^z = exp(z)$ (because $log{(e)}=1$, by definition) and this makes sense for all complex numbers $z$.
One defines the functions $cos, sin : mathbb{C} rightarrow mathbb{R}$ by $cos(x) := frac{1}{2}(e^{ix}+ e^{-ix})$ and $sin(x) := frac{1}{2i}(e^{ix}- e^{-ix})$. It is a (rather non-trivial) Theorem that there is a unique smallest, strictly positive zero $p$ of the function $cos$, restricted to the real line. One defines the number $pi$ by $ pi := 2p$. It can be shown that the number $pi$ and the functions $sin$ and $cos$ have the "familiar properties". Notice that the identity $e^{ix} = cos(x) + i sin(x)$ for $x in mathbb{R}$ follows directly from the definitions. As does $e^{i pi} = -1$. It always strikes me that people find these two identities so amazing.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This took the weirdness out of complex exponents as numbers and not angles. But how it comes to Euler's formula still mystified me, so I marked Xanthirs answer as accepted. Thanks, +1!
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There can be a bunch of definition of number $e$. Let's stick with this definition:
$$
frac{d}{dt} e^t = e^t.
$$
So we want to find what number can be $z(t)=e^{it} =x(t)+iy(t)$:
$$
z'(t)=x'(t) + iy'(t)=ie^{it} = ix(t) - y(t),\
x'(t) = -y(t),qquad y'(t)=x(t),\
x''(t) = -y'(t)=-x(t)
$$
Finally, $x''(t)+x(t)=0$ and $x(0)=1$, $x'(0)=-y(0)=0$ (since $e^{0i}=e^0=1$), thus $x(t)=cos t$ as the only function that suffice the equation. Then $y=x'(t)=sin t$.
So, we have found what number is $e^{it}=cos t+isin t$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think the OP requires I precise definition of $cos (cdot )$, before, maybe geometrically based?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:59
$begingroup$
One technical point. If the function $cos t$ is given in degrees (i.e. $tin[0,360]$) then it doesn't satisfy the differential equation. The derivative of $cos$ in degrees is $frac{180}{pi}$ times the derivative of the usual $cos$.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
Jan 18 at 20:21
$begingroup$
@Matteo that's true. This is my go-to proof for explaining Euler's formula to people but it didn't help much, although it is quite elegant.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 8:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In calculus, the trigonometric functions are not dealing with angles but with real numbers. Implicitly, the numbers are taken to be radians, so that $cospi=-1,sinpi=0,$ which is compatible with Eulers' famous formula
$$e^{ipi}=cospi+isinpi=-1.$$
These function are "natural", in the sense that they resemble their derivatives:
$$(e^{ipi})'=ie^{ipi}=(cos x+isin x)'=i(cos x+isin x).$$
You can very well define functions assuming arguments in degrees and write for instance $cos_d180=-1,sin_d180=0$. But these functions are a kind of "historical mistake" and do not enjoy the above derivative property, as an extra scaling factor appears.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Angular Units and Trigonometric Functions
When we talk about arguments to trigonometric functions, there are at least $2$ common angular units: degrees ($360$ to a full rotation) and radians ($2pi$ to a full rotation). A number of calculators also support gradians ($400$ to a full rotation), which are only used in some countries and usually only in certain occupations (e.g. surveying, mining, geology).
In mathematics, we usually use radians because when angles are measured in radians, we have
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=lim_{xto0}frac{tan(x)}{x}=1tag1
$$
That is, for small angles, $sin(x)simtan(x)sim x$. The actual ordering for $|x|ltfracpi2$ is
$$
frac{sin(x)}{x}le1lefrac{tan(x)}{x}tag2
$$
Furthermore, when $x$ is in radians, we have the nice series
$$
sin(x)=sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^nfrac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}tag3
$$
and the value of
$$
arctan(x)=sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^nfrac{x^{2n+1}}{2n+1}tag4
$$
is in radians.
Radians are also natural because an arc which subtends $x$ radians on a circle of radius $r$ has length $rx$.
So when we talk about angles, and don't mention the units, we assume radians.
The Exponential of Imaginary Numbers
For $xinmathbb{R}$, we can write
$$
e^x=lim_{ntoinfty}left(1+frac xnright)^ntag5
$$
so it seems reasonable to write
$$
e^{ix}=lim_{ntoinfty}left(1+frac{ix}nright)^ntag6
$$
Multiplication by $1+frac{ix}n$ increases the absolute value so minimally, that even when repeated $n$ times, it is insignificant as $ntoinfty$. However, multiplication by $1+frac{ix}n$ rotates a number on the unit circle by a distance of $frac xn$ counter-clockwise along the circle. When this is repeated $n$ times, it rotates a number on the unit circle by a distance of $x$.
Thus, $e^{ix}$ is a point on the unit circle whose counter-clockwise distance from $1+0i$ is $x$. This is why we use radians when saying
$$
e^{ix}=cos(x)+isin(x)tag7
$$
To see a more detailed explanation of $(7)$, see this answer.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just a little note that I hope can be of some use. In order to avoid confusion when dealing with angles and unit of measures of them, one can directly define the trigonometric functions starting with the arc lenght measurement.
Consider the semicircle of equation
$$f(x) = sqrt{1-x^2}, xin [-1,1].$$
It is relatively easy to show that the arc length between point $(y, f(y))$ and point $(1,0)$ can be computed with the (improper) integral
$$A(y) = int_y^1frac{1}{sqrt{1-x^2}}dx, yin [-1, 1].$$
Here the unit of measure is clearly the same as the one used for determining abscissae and ordinates.
$A(y)$ is continuous in $[-1,1]$, differentiable in $(-1,1)$, and strictly decreasing. So it has a well defined inverse function
$$A^{-1}(x)= cos(x)$$
with domain $[0, pi]$, where, by definition $A(-1) = pi$. The rest of the cosine function can be defined using appropriate shifts and periodicity.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That makes sense for defining these functions, I hadn't thought of that.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:39
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A number of people are giving fairly complex answers (no pun intended) about exponentiation, but I want to address a much simpler misunderstanding in your answer, which should hopefully clear up some of the issues.
And since cosine can only take in an angle
No, the trig functions definitely take numbers. They're related to the circle, in that they're cyclic, and the "width" of their repetition is exactly 2π, which happens to be the circumference of a circle when you measure it in radians. But the argument to trig functions aren't angles except by convention.
The question is then raised could I then say e180i=−1?
180 isn't equal to π, any more than it's equal to 50 just because 180 degrees is 50% of circle. 180 degrees is equal to π radians, but since the exponentiation operator also takes numbers, not angles, that equivalence between angle units isn't relevant.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So radians, degrees, etc are scalars with radian=1. Saying trig functions are functions of geometric angles is not always true but it can be if the number input is a function of an angle. Do I understand correctly?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:29
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn, I would even go further then that. After all, even, say, curves in $mathbb R^2$ are just metaphores (isomorphisms) based on the idea of associating couples of numbers that satisfy certain equations with coordinates of points in the $xy$-plane. Identifying things that are just connected by an isomorphism can be useful at times, but at others misleading. That is why I think the basic algebraic relation between numbers should always be clarified.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:33
$begingroup$
@Matteo I'm just beggining category theory and isomorphisms and stuff and have made that relation with graphs and totally agree... I see my mistake now. So is a radian equal to 1 or isomorphic to 1?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:39
$begingroup$
@Matteo Isomorphic because they satisfy the same universal property? Although many (infinite) numbers are associated are associated with a single angle so you'd need fibers, or something?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn I was using the word isomorphism in a very loose sense. The idea of a mapping between complex structures that preserves some properties. You like to think of the argument of $cos(cdot )$ as if it were the measure of an angle, but you can even think of ratios between hypotenuse and side of a right-angled triangle, at least on a subset of the domain, or as the abscissa giving a certain arc lengh on a semicircle (as you saw in my answer). What is the most comfortable metaphore when you want to extend your reasoning to complex numbers?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A number of people are giving fairly complex answers (no pun intended) about exponentiation, but I want to address a much simpler misunderstanding in your answer, which should hopefully clear up some of the issues.
And since cosine can only take in an angle
No, the trig functions definitely take numbers. They're related to the circle, in that they're cyclic, and the "width" of their repetition is exactly 2π, which happens to be the circumference of a circle when you measure it in radians. But the argument to trig functions aren't angles except by convention.
The question is then raised could I then say e180i=−1?
180 isn't equal to π, any more than it's equal to 50 just because 180 degrees is 50% of circle. 180 degrees is equal to π radians, but since the exponentiation operator also takes numbers, not angles, that equivalence between angle units isn't relevant.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So radians, degrees, etc are scalars with radian=1. Saying trig functions are functions of geometric angles is not always true but it can be if the number input is a function of an angle. Do I understand correctly?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:29
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn, I would even go further then that. After all, even, say, curves in $mathbb R^2$ are just metaphores (isomorphisms) based on the idea of associating couples of numbers that satisfy certain equations with coordinates of points in the $xy$-plane. Identifying things that are just connected by an isomorphism can be useful at times, but at others misleading. That is why I think the basic algebraic relation between numbers should always be clarified.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:33
$begingroup$
@Matteo I'm just beggining category theory and isomorphisms and stuff and have made that relation with graphs and totally agree... I see my mistake now. So is a radian equal to 1 or isomorphic to 1?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:39
$begingroup$
@Matteo Isomorphic because they satisfy the same universal property? Although many (infinite) numbers are associated are associated with a single angle so you'd need fibers, or something?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn I was using the word isomorphism in a very loose sense. The idea of a mapping between complex structures that preserves some properties. You like to think of the argument of $cos(cdot )$ as if it were the measure of an angle, but you can even think of ratios between hypotenuse and side of a right-angled triangle, at least on a subset of the domain, or as the abscissa giving a certain arc lengh on a semicircle (as you saw in my answer). What is the most comfortable metaphore when you want to extend your reasoning to complex numbers?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A number of people are giving fairly complex answers (no pun intended) about exponentiation, but I want to address a much simpler misunderstanding in your answer, which should hopefully clear up some of the issues.
And since cosine can only take in an angle
No, the trig functions definitely take numbers. They're related to the circle, in that they're cyclic, and the "width" of their repetition is exactly 2π, which happens to be the circumference of a circle when you measure it in radians. But the argument to trig functions aren't angles except by convention.
The question is then raised could I then say e180i=−1?
180 isn't equal to π, any more than it's equal to 50 just because 180 degrees is 50% of circle. 180 degrees is equal to π radians, but since the exponentiation operator also takes numbers, not angles, that equivalence between angle units isn't relevant.
$endgroup$
A number of people are giving fairly complex answers (no pun intended) about exponentiation, but I want to address a much simpler misunderstanding in your answer, which should hopefully clear up some of the issues.
And since cosine can only take in an angle
No, the trig functions definitely take numbers. They're related to the circle, in that they're cyclic, and the "width" of their repetition is exactly 2π, which happens to be the circumference of a circle when you measure it in radians. But the argument to trig functions aren't angles except by convention.
The question is then raised could I then say e180i=−1?
180 isn't equal to π, any more than it's equal to 50 just because 180 degrees is 50% of circle. 180 degrees is equal to π radians, but since the exponentiation operator also takes numbers, not angles, that equivalence between angle units isn't relevant.
answered Jan 19 at 1:51
XanthirXanthir
1362
1362
$begingroup$
So radians, degrees, etc are scalars with radian=1. Saying trig functions are functions of geometric angles is not always true but it can be if the number input is a function of an angle. Do I understand correctly?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:29
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn, I would even go further then that. After all, even, say, curves in $mathbb R^2$ are just metaphores (isomorphisms) based on the idea of associating couples of numbers that satisfy certain equations with coordinates of points in the $xy$-plane. Identifying things that are just connected by an isomorphism can be useful at times, but at others misleading. That is why I think the basic algebraic relation between numbers should always be clarified.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:33
$begingroup$
@Matteo I'm just beggining category theory and isomorphisms and stuff and have made that relation with graphs and totally agree... I see my mistake now. So is a radian equal to 1 or isomorphic to 1?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:39
$begingroup$
@Matteo Isomorphic because they satisfy the same universal property? Although many (infinite) numbers are associated are associated with a single angle so you'd need fibers, or something?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn I was using the word isomorphism in a very loose sense. The idea of a mapping between complex structures that preserves some properties. You like to think of the argument of $cos(cdot )$ as if it were the measure of an angle, but you can even think of ratios between hypotenuse and side of a right-angled triangle, at least on a subset of the domain, or as the abscissa giving a certain arc lengh on a semicircle (as you saw in my answer). What is the most comfortable metaphore when you want to extend your reasoning to complex numbers?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So radians, degrees, etc are scalars with radian=1. Saying trig functions are functions of geometric angles is not always true but it can be if the number input is a function of an angle. Do I understand correctly?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:29
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn, I would even go further then that. After all, even, say, curves in $mathbb R^2$ are just metaphores (isomorphisms) based on the idea of associating couples of numbers that satisfy certain equations with coordinates of points in the $xy$-plane. Identifying things that are just connected by an isomorphism can be useful at times, but at others misleading. That is why I think the basic algebraic relation between numbers should always be clarified.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:33
$begingroup$
@Matteo I'm just beggining category theory and isomorphisms and stuff and have made that relation with graphs and totally agree... I see my mistake now. So is a radian equal to 1 or isomorphic to 1?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:39
$begingroup$
@Matteo Isomorphic because they satisfy the same universal property? Although many (infinite) numbers are associated are associated with a single angle so you'd need fibers, or something?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:46
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn I was using the word isomorphism in a very loose sense. The idea of a mapping between complex structures that preserves some properties. You like to think of the argument of $cos(cdot )$ as if it were the measure of an angle, but you can even think of ratios between hypotenuse and side of a right-angled triangle, at least on a subset of the domain, or as the abscissa giving a certain arc lengh on a semicircle (as you saw in my answer). What is the most comfortable metaphore when you want to extend your reasoning to complex numbers?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:55
$begingroup$
So radians, degrees, etc are scalars with radian=1. Saying trig functions are functions of geometric angles is not always true but it can be if the number input is a function of an angle. Do I understand correctly?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:29
$begingroup$
So radians, degrees, etc are scalars with radian=1. Saying trig functions are functions of geometric angles is not always true but it can be if the number input is a function of an angle. Do I understand correctly?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:29
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn, I would even go further then that. After all, even, say, curves in $mathbb R^2$ are just metaphores (isomorphisms) based on the idea of associating couples of numbers that satisfy certain equations with coordinates of points in the $xy$-plane. Identifying things that are just connected by an isomorphism can be useful at times, but at others misleading. That is why I think the basic algebraic relation between numbers should always be clarified.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:33
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn, I would even go further then that. After all, even, say, curves in $mathbb R^2$ are just metaphores (isomorphisms) based on the idea of associating couples of numbers that satisfy certain equations with coordinates of points in the $xy$-plane. Identifying things that are just connected by an isomorphism can be useful at times, but at others misleading. That is why I think the basic algebraic relation between numbers should always be clarified.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:33
$begingroup$
@Matteo I'm just beggining category theory and isomorphisms and stuff and have made that relation with graphs and totally agree... I see my mistake now. So is a radian equal to 1 or isomorphic to 1?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:39
$begingroup$
@Matteo I'm just beggining category theory and isomorphisms and stuff and have made that relation with graphs and totally agree... I see my mistake now. So is a radian equal to 1 or isomorphic to 1?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:39
$begingroup$
@Matteo Isomorphic because they satisfy the same universal property? Although many (infinite) numbers are associated are associated with a single angle so you'd need fibers, or something?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:46
$begingroup$
@Matteo Isomorphic because they satisfy the same universal property? Although many (infinite) numbers are associated are associated with a single angle so you'd need fibers, or something?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 13:46
1
1
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn I was using the word isomorphism in a very loose sense. The idea of a mapping between complex structures that preserves some properties. You like to think of the argument of $cos(cdot )$ as if it were the measure of an angle, but you can even think of ratios between hypotenuse and side of a right-angled triangle, at least on a subset of the domain, or as the abscissa giving a certain arc lengh on a semicircle (as you saw in my answer). What is the most comfortable metaphore when you want to extend your reasoning to complex numbers?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:55
$begingroup$
@BenjaminThoburn I was using the word isomorphism in a very loose sense. The idea of a mapping between complex structures that preserves some properties. You like to think of the argument of $cos(cdot )$ as if it were the measure of an angle, but you can even think of ratios between hypotenuse and side of a right-angled triangle, at least on a subset of the domain, or as the abscissa giving a certain arc lengh on a semicircle (as you saw in my answer). What is the most comfortable metaphore when you want to extend your reasoning to complex numbers?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:55
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is more an answer to the title of your question. A possible (and perhaps the standard) way of properly defining things is as follows. See any reasonable rigorous textbook on analysis for the proofs.
First define the exponential function $exp : mathbb{C} rightarrow mathbb{C}$, by the absolutely convergent series $exp(z) := sum_{n=0}^{infty}{ frac{z^n}{n!}}$. It is easy to prove that $exp$, restricted to the real line, takes real values. A bit more work shows that $exp$, restricted to the real line, is strictly incresing and everywhere $>0$ and that $exp(mathbb{R}) = (0, infty)$. It follows that there is a bijetive function $log{}:(0, infty) rightarrow mathbb{R}$, the inverse of $x mapsto exp(x)$ from $mathbb{R} rightarrow (0, infty)$. The number $e$ is defined as $e: = exp(1)$. For any positive real number $a$ and any complex number $z$, one defines $a^z$ by $a^z := exp(log(a) z)$. Hence, by definition, $e^z = exp(z)$ (because $log{(e)}=1$, by definition) and this makes sense for all complex numbers $z$.
One defines the functions $cos, sin : mathbb{C} rightarrow mathbb{R}$ by $cos(x) := frac{1}{2}(e^{ix}+ e^{-ix})$ and $sin(x) := frac{1}{2i}(e^{ix}- e^{-ix})$. It is a (rather non-trivial) Theorem that there is a unique smallest, strictly positive zero $p$ of the function $cos$, restricted to the real line. One defines the number $pi$ by $ pi := 2p$. It can be shown that the number $pi$ and the functions $sin$ and $cos$ have the "familiar properties". Notice that the identity $e^{ix} = cos(x) + i sin(x)$ for $x in mathbb{R}$ follows directly from the definitions. As does $e^{i pi} = -1$. It always strikes me that people find these two identities so amazing.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This took the weirdness out of complex exponents as numbers and not angles. But how it comes to Euler's formula still mystified me, so I marked Xanthirs answer as accepted. Thanks, +1!
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is more an answer to the title of your question. A possible (and perhaps the standard) way of properly defining things is as follows. See any reasonable rigorous textbook on analysis for the proofs.
First define the exponential function $exp : mathbb{C} rightarrow mathbb{C}$, by the absolutely convergent series $exp(z) := sum_{n=0}^{infty}{ frac{z^n}{n!}}$. It is easy to prove that $exp$, restricted to the real line, takes real values. A bit more work shows that $exp$, restricted to the real line, is strictly incresing and everywhere $>0$ and that $exp(mathbb{R}) = (0, infty)$. It follows that there is a bijetive function $log{}:(0, infty) rightarrow mathbb{R}$, the inverse of $x mapsto exp(x)$ from $mathbb{R} rightarrow (0, infty)$. The number $e$ is defined as $e: = exp(1)$. For any positive real number $a$ and any complex number $z$, one defines $a^z$ by $a^z := exp(log(a) z)$. Hence, by definition, $e^z = exp(z)$ (because $log{(e)}=1$, by definition) and this makes sense for all complex numbers $z$.
One defines the functions $cos, sin : mathbb{C} rightarrow mathbb{R}$ by $cos(x) := frac{1}{2}(e^{ix}+ e^{-ix})$ and $sin(x) := frac{1}{2i}(e^{ix}- e^{-ix})$. It is a (rather non-trivial) Theorem that there is a unique smallest, strictly positive zero $p$ of the function $cos$, restricted to the real line. One defines the number $pi$ by $ pi := 2p$. It can be shown that the number $pi$ and the functions $sin$ and $cos$ have the "familiar properties". Notice that the identity $e^{ix} = cos(x) + i sin(x)$ for $x in mathbb{R}$ follows directly from the definitions. As does $e^{i pi} = -1$. It always strikes me that people find these two identities so amazing.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This took the weirdness out of complex exponents as numbers and not angles. But how it comes to Euler's formula still mystified me, so I marked Xanthirs answer as accepted. Thanks, +1!
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is more an answer to the title of your question. A possible (and perhaps the standard) way of properly defining things is as follows. See any reasonable rigorous textbook on analysis for the proofs.
First define the exponential function $exp : mathbb{C} rightarrow mathbb{C}$, by the absolutely convergent series $exp(z) := sum_{n=0}^{infty}{ frac{z^n}{n!}}$. It is easy to prove that $exp$, restricted to the real line, takes real values. A bit more work shows that $exp$, restricted to the real line, is strictly incresing and everywhere $>0$ and that $exp(mathbb{R}) = (0, infty)$. It follows that there is a bijetive function $log{}:(0, infty) rightarrow mathbb{R}$, the inverse of $x mapsto exp(x)$ from $mathbb{R} rightarrow (0, infty)$. The number $e$ is defined as $e: = exp(1)$. For any positive real number $a$ and any complex number $z$, one defines $a^z$ by $a^z := exp(log(a) z)$. Hence, by definition, $e^z = exp(z)$ (because $log{(e)}=1$, by definition) and this makes sense for all complex numbers $z$.
One defines the functions $cos, sin : mathbb{C} rightarrow mathbb{R}$ by $cos(x) := frac{1}{2}(e^{ix}+ e^{-ix})$ and $sin(x) := frac{1}{2i}(e^{ix}- e^{-ix})$. It is a (rather non-trivial) Theorem that there is a unique smallest, strictly positive zero $p$ of the function $cos$, restricted to the real line. One defines the number $pi$ by $ pi := 2p$. It can be shown that the number $pi$ and the functions $sin$ and $cos$ have the "familiar properties". Notice that the identity $e^{ix} = cos(x) + i sin(x)$ for $x in mathbb{R}$ follows directly from the definitions. As does $e^{i pi} = -1$. It always strikes me that people find these two identities so amazing.
$endgroup$
This is more an answer to the title of your question. A possible (and perhaps the standard) way of properly defining things is as follows. See any reasonable rigorous textbook on analysis for the proofs.
First define the exponential function $exp : mathbb{C} rightarrow mathbb{C}$, by the absolutely convergent series $exp(z) := sum_{n=0}^{infty}{ frac{z^n}{n!}}$. It is easy to prove that $exp$, restricted to the real line, takes real values. A bit more work shows that $exp$, restricted to the real line, is strictly incresing and everywhere $>0$ and that $exp(mathbb{R}) = (0, infty)$. It follows that there is a bijetive function $log{}:(0, infty) rightarrow mathbb{R}$, the inverse of $x mapsto exp(x)$ from $mathbb{R} rightarrow (0, infty)$. The number $e$ is defined as $e: = exp(1)$. For any positive real number $a$ and any complex number $z$, one defines $a^z$ by $a^z := exp(log(a) z)$. Hence, by definition, $e^z = exp(z)$ (because $log{(e)}=1$, by definition) and this makes sense for all complex numbers $z$.
One defines the functions $cos, sin : mathbb{C} rightarrow mathbb{R}$ by $cos(x) := frac{1}{2}(e^{ix}+ e^{-ix})$ and $sin(x) := frac{1}{2i}(e^{ix}- e^{-ix})$. It is a (rather non-trivial) Theorem that there is a unique smallest, strictly positive zero $p$ of the function $cos$, restricted to the real line. One defines the number $pi$ by $ pi := 2p$. It can be shown that the number $pi$ and the functions $sin$ and $cos$ have the "familiar properties". Notice that the identity $e^{ix} = cos(x) + i sin(x)$ for $x in mathbb{R}$ follows directly from the definitions. As does $e^{i pi} = -1$. It always strikes me that people find these two identities so amazing.
edited Jan 19 at 12:55
answered Jan 18 at 20:01
m.sm.s
1,324313
1,324313
$begingroup$
This took the weirdness out of complex exponents as numbers and not angles. But how it comes to Euler's formula still mystified me, so I marked Xanthirs answer as accepted. Thanks, +1!
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This took the weirdness out of complex exponents as numbers and not angles. But how it comes to Euler's formula still mystified me, so I marked Xanthirs answer as accepted. Thanks, +1!
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:37
$begingroup$
This took the weirdness out of complex exponents as numbers and not angles. But how it comes to Euler's formula still mystified me, so I marked Xanthirs answer as accepted. Thanks, +1!
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:37
$begingroup$
This took the weirdness out of complex exponents as numbers and not angles. But how it comes to Euler's formula still mystified me, so I marked Xanthirs answer as accepted. Thanks, +1!
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There can be a bunch of definition of number $e$. Let's stick with this definition:
$$
frac{d}{dt} e^t = e^t.
$$
So we want to find what number can be $z(t)=e^{it} =x(t)+iy(t)$:
$$
z'(t)=x'(t) + iy'(t)=ie^{it} = ix(t) - y(t),\
x'(t) = -y(t),qquad y'(t)=x(t),\
x''(t) = -y'(t)=-x(t)
$$
Finally, $x''(t)+x(t)=0$ and $x(0)=1$, $x'(0)=-y(0)=0$ (since $e^{0i}=e^0=1$), thus $x(t)=cos t$ as the only function that suffice the equation. Then $y=x'(t)=sin t$.
So, we have found what number is $e^{it}=cos t+isin t$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think the OP requires I precise definition of $cos (cdot )$, before, maybe geometrically based?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:59
$begingroup$
One technical point. If the function $cos t$ is given in degrees (i.e. $tin[0,360]$) then it doesn't satisfy the differential equation. The derivative of $cos$ in degrees is $frac{180}{pi}$ times the derivative of the usual $cos$.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
Jan 18 at 20:21
$begingroup$
@Matteo that's true. This is my go-to proof for explaining Euler's formula to people but it didn't help much, although it is quite elegant.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 8:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There can be a bunch of definition of number $e$. Let's stick with this definition:
$$
frac{d}{dt} e^t = e^t.
$$
So we want to find what number can be $z(t)=e^{it} =x(t)+iy(t)$:
$$
z'(t)=x'(t) + iy'(t)=ie^{it} = ix(t) - y(t),\
x'(t) = -y(t),qquad y'(t)=x(t),\
x''(t) = -y'(t)=-x(t)
$$
Finally, $x''(t)+x(t)=0$ and $x(0)=1$, $x'(0)=-y(0)=0$ (since $e^{0i}=e^0=1$), thus $x(t)=cos t$ as the only function that suffice the equation. Then $y=x'(t)=sin t$.
So, we have found what number is $e^{it}=cos t+isin t$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think the OP requires I precise definition of $cos (cdot )$, before, maybe geometrically based?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:59
$begingroup$
One technical point. If the function $cos t$ is given in degrees (i.e. $tin[0,360]$) then it doesn't satisfy the differential equation. The derivative of $cos$ in degrees is $frac{180}{pi}$ times the derivative of the usual $cos$.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
Jan 18 at 20:21
$begingroup$
@Matteo that's true. This is my go-to proof for explaining Euler's formula to people but it didn't help much, although it is quite elegant.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 8:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There can be a bunch of definition of number $e$. Let's stick with this definition:
$$
frac{d}{dt} e^t = e^t.
$$
So we want to find what number can be $z(t)=e^{it} =x(t)+iy(t)$:
$$
z'(t)=x'(t) + iy'(t)=ie^{it} = ix(t) - y(t),\
x'(t) = -y(t),qquad y'(t)=x(t),\
x''(t) = -y'(t)=-x(t)
$$
Finally, $x''(t)+x(t)=0$ and $x(0)=1$, $x'(0)=-y(0)=0$ (since $e^{0i}=e^0=1$), thus $x(t)=cos t$ as the only function that suffice the equation. Then $y=x'(t)=sin t$.
So, we have found what number is $e^{it}=cos t+isin t$
$endgroup$
There can be a bunch of definition of number $e$. Let's stick with this definition:
$$
frac{d}{dt} e^t = e^t.
$$
So we want to find what number can be $z(t)=e^{it} =x(t)+iy(t)$:
$$
z'(t)=x'(t) + iy'(t)=ie^{it} = ix(t) - y(t),\
x'(t) = -y(t),qquad y'(t)=x(t),\
x''(t) = -y'(t)=-x(t)
$$
Finally, $x''(t)+x(t)=0$ and $x(0)=1$, $x'(0)=-y(0)=0$ (since $e^{0i}=e^0=1$), thus $x(t)=cos t$ as the only function that suffice the equation. Then $y=x'(t)=sin t$.
So, we have found what number is $e^{it}=cos t+isin t$
answered Jan 18 at 19:57
Vasily MitchVasily Mitch
2,3241311
2,3241311
$begingroup$
I think the OP requires I precise definition of $cos (cdot )$, before, maybe geometrically based?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:59
$begingroup$
One technical point. If the function $cos t$ is given in degrees (i.e. $tin[0,360]$) then it doesn't satisfy the differential equation. The derivative of $cos$ in degrees is $frac{180}{pi}$ times the derivative of the usual $cos$.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
Jan 18 at 20:21
$begingroup$
@Matteo that's true. This is my go-to proof for explaining Euler's formula to people but it didn't help much, although it is quite elegant.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 8:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the OP requires I precise definition of $cos (cdot )$, before, maybe geometrically based?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:59
$begingroup$
One technical point. If the function $cos t$ is given in degrees (i.e. $tin[0,360]$) then it doesn't satisfy the differential equation. The derivative of $cos$ in degrees is $frac{180}{pi}$ times the derivative of the usual $cos$.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
Jan 18 at 20:21
$begingroup$
@Matteo that's true. This is my go-to proof for explaining Euler's formula to people but it didn't help much, although it is quite elegant.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 8:17
$begingroup$
I think the OP requires I precise definition of $cos (cdot )$, before, maybe geometrically based?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:59
$begingroup$
I think the OP requires I precise definition of $cos (cdot )$, before, maybe geometrically based?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:59
$begingroup$
One technical point. If the function $cos t$ is given in degrees (i.e. $tin[0,360]$) then it doesn't satisfy the differential equation. The derivative of $cos$ in degrees is $frac{180}{pi}$ times the derivative of the usual $cos$.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
Jan 18 at 20:21
$begingroup$
One technical point. If the function $cos t$ is given in degrees (i.e. $tin[0,360]$) then it doesn't satisfy the differential equation. The derivative of $cos$ in degrees is $frac{180}{pi}$ times the derivative of the usual $cos$.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
Jan 18 at 20:21
$begingroup$
@Matteo that's true. This is my go-to proof for explaining Euler's formula to people but it didn't help much, although it is quite elegant.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 8:17
$begingroup$
@Matteo that's true. This is my go-to proof for explaining Euler's formula to people but it didn't help much, although it is quite elegant.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 8:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In calculus, the trigonometric functions are not dealing with angles but with real numbers. Implicitly, the numbers are taken to be radians, so that $cospi=-1,sinpi=0,$ which is compatible with Eulers' famous formula
$$e^{ipi}=cospi+isinpi=-1.$$
These function are "natural", in the sense that they resemble their derivatives:
$$(e^{ipi})'=ie^{ipi}=(cos x+isin x)'=i(cos x+isin x).$$
You can very well define functions assuming arguments in degrees and write for instance $cos_d180=-1,sin_d180=0$. But these functions are a kind of "historical mistake" and do not enjoy the above derivative property, as an extra scaling factor appears.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In calculus, the trigonometric functions are not dealing with angles but with real numbers. Implicitly, the numbers are taken to be radians, so that $cospi=-1,sinpi=0,$ which is compatible with Eulers' famous formula
$$e^{ipi}=cospi+isinpi=-1.$$
These function are "natural", in the sense that they resemble their derivatives:
$$(e^{ipi})'=ie^{ipi}=(cos x+isin x)'=i(cos x+isin x).$$
You can very well define functions assuming arguments in degrees and write for instance $cos_d180=-1,sin_d180=0$. But these functions are a kind of "historical mistake" and do not enjoy the above derivative property, as an extra scaling factor appears.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In calculus, the trigonometric functions are not dealing with angles but with real numbers. Implicitly, the numbers are taken to be radians, so that $cospi=-1,sinpi=0,$ which is compatible with Eulers' famous formula
$$e^{ipi}=cospi+isinpi=-1.$$
These function are "natural", in the sense that they resemble their derivatives:
$$(e^{ipi})'=ie^{ipi}=(cos x+isin x)'=i(cos x+isin x).$$
You can very well define functions assuming arguments in degrees and write for instance $cos_d180=-1,sin_d180=0$. But these functions are a kind of "historical mistake" and do not enjoy the above derivative property, as an extra scaling factor appears.
$endgroup$
In calculus, the trigonometric functions are not dealing with angles but with real numbers. Implicitly, the numbers are taken to be radians, so that $cospi=-1,sinpi=0,$ which is compatible with Eulers' famous formula
$$e^{ipi}=cospi+isinpi=-1.$$
These function are "natural", in the sense that they resemble their derivatives:
$$(e^{ipi})'=ie^{ipi}=(cos x+isin x)'=i(cos x+isin x).$$
You can very well define functions assuming arguments in degrees and write for instance $cos_d180=-1,sin_d180=0$. But these functions are a kind of "historical mistake" and do not enjoy the above derivative property, as an extra scaling factor appears.
edited Jan 18 at 21:24
answered Jan 18 at 21:18
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
128k673226
128k673226
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Angular Units and Trigonometric Functions
When we talk about arguments to trigonometric functions, there are at least $2$ common angular units: degrees ($360$ to a full rotation) and radians ($2pi$ to a full rotation). A number of calculators also support gradians ($400$ to a full rotation), which are only used in some countries and usually only in certain occupations (e.g. surveying, mining, geology).
In mathematics, we usually use radians because when angles are measured in radians, we have
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=lim_{xto0}frac{tan(x)}{x}=1tag1
$$
That is, for small angles, $sin(x)simtan(x)sim x$. The actual ordering for $|x|ltfracpi2$ is
$$
frac{sin(x)}{x}le1lefrac{tan(x)}{x}tag2
$$
Furthermore, when $x$ is in radians, we have the nice series
$$
sin(x)=sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^nfrac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}tag3
$$
and the value of
$$
arctan(x)=sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^nfrac{x^{2n+1}}{2n+1}tag4
$$
is in radians.
Radians are also natural because an arc which subtends $x$ radians on a circle of radius $r$ has length $rx$.
So when we talk about angles, and don't mention the units, we assume radians.
The Exponential of Imaginary Numbers
For $xinmathbb{R}$, we can write
$$
e^x=lim_{ntoinfty}left(1+frac xnright)^ntag5
$$
so it seems reasonable to write
$$
e^{ix}=lim_{ntoinfty}left(1+frac{ix}nright)^ntag6
$$
Multiplication by $1+frac{ix}n$ increases the absolute value so minimally, that even when repeated $n$ times, it is insignificant as $ntoinfty$. However, multiplication by $1+frac{ix}n$ rotates a number on the unit circle by a distance of $frac xn$ counter-clockwise along the circle. When this is repeated $n$ times, it rotates a number on the unit circle by a distance of $x$.
Thus, $e^{ix}$ is a point on the unit circle whose counter-clockwise distance from $1+0i$ is $x$. This is why we use radians when saying
$$
e^{ix}=cos(x)+isin(x)tag7
$$
To see a more detailed explanation of $(7)$, see this answer.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Angular Units and Trigonometric Functions
When we talk about arguments to trigonometric functions, there are at least $2$ common angular units: degrees ($360$ to a full rotation) and radians ($2pi$ to a full rotation). A number of calculators also support gradians ($400$ to a full rotation), which are only used in some countries and usually only in certain occupations (e.g. surveying, mining, geology).
In mathematics, we usually use radians because when angles are measured in radians, we have
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=lim_{xto0}frac{tan(x)}{x}=1tag1
$$
That is, for small angles, $sin(x)simtan(x)sim x$. The actual ordering for $|x|ltfracpi2$ is
$$
frac{sin(x)}{x}le1lefrac{tan(x)}{x}tag2
$$
Furthermore, when $x$ is in radians, we have the nice series
$$
sin(x)=sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^nfrac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}tag3
$$
and the value of
$$
arctan(x)=sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^nfrac{x^{2n+1}}{2n+1}tag4
$$
is in radians.
Radians are also natural because an arc which subtends $x$ radians on a circle of radius $r$ has length $rx$.
So when we talk about angles, and don't mention the units, we assume radians.
The Exponential of Imaginary Numbers
For $xinmathbb{R}$, we can write
$$
e^x=lim_{ntoinfty}left(1+frac xnright)^ntag5
$$
so it seems reasonable to write
$$
e^{ix}=lim_{ntoinfty}left(1+frac{ix}nright)^ntag6
$$
Multiplication by $1+frac{ix}n$ increases the absolute value so minimally, that even when repeated $n$ times, it is insignificant as $ntoinfty$. However, multiplication by $1+frac{ix}n$ rotates a number on the unit circle by a distance of $frac xn$ counter-clockwise along the circle. When this is repeated $n$ times, it rotates a number on the unit circle by a distance of $x$.
Thus, $e^{ix}$ is a point on the unit circle whose counter-clockwise distance from $1+0i$ is $x$. This is why we use radians when saying
$$
e^{ix}=cos(x)+isin(x)tag7
$$
To see a more detailed explanation of $(7)$, see this answer.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Angular Units and Trigonometric Functions
When we talk about arguments to trigonometric functions, there are at least $2$ common angular units: degrees ($360$ to a full rotation) and radians ($2pi$ to a full rotation). A number of calculators also support gradians ($400$ to a full rotation), which are only used in some countries and usually only in certain occupations (e.g. surveying, mining, geology).
In mathematics, we usually use radians because when angles are measured in radians, we have
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=lim_{xto0}frac{tan(x)}{x}=1tag1
$$
That is, for small angles, $sin(x)simtan(x)sim x$. The actual ordering for $|x|ltfracpi2$ is
$$
frac{sin(x)}{x}le1lefrac{tan(x)}{x}tag2
$$
Furthermore, when $x$ is in radians, we have the nice series
$$
sin(x)=sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^nfrac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}tag3
$$
and the value of
$$
arctan(x)=sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^nfrac{x^{2n+1}}{2n+1}tag4
$$
is in radians.
Radians are also natural because an arc which subtends $x$ radians on a circle of radius $r$ has length $rx$.
So when we talk about angles, and don't mention the units, we assume radians.
The Exponential of Imaginary Numbers
For $xinmathbb{R}$, we can write
$$
e^x=lim_{ntoinfty}left(1+frac xnright)^ntag5
$$
so it seems reasonable to write
$$
e^{ix}=lim_{ntoinfty}left(1+frac{ix}nright)^ntag6
$$
Multiplication by $1+frac{ix}n$ increases the absolute value so minimally, that even when repeated $n$ times, it is insignificant as $ntoinfty$. However, multiplication by $1+frac{ix}n$ rotates a number on the unit circle by a distance of $frac xn$ counter-clockwise along the circle. When this is repeated $n$ times, it rotates a number on the unit circle by a distance of $x$.
Thus, $e^{ix}$ is a point on the unit circle whose counter-clockwise distance from $1+0i$ is $x$. This is why we use radians when saying
$$
e^{ix}=cos(x)+isin(x)tag7
$$
To see a more detailed explanation of $(7)$, see this answer.
$endgroup$
Angular Units and Trigonometric Functions
When we talk about arguments to trigonometric functions, there are at least $2$ common angular units: degrees ($360$ to a full rotation) and radians ($2pi$ to a full rotation). A number of calculators also support gradians ($400$ to a full rotation), which are only used in some countries and usually only in certain occupations (e.g. surveying, mining, geology).
In mathematics, we usually use radians because when angles are measured in radians, we have
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=lim_{xto0}frac{tan(x)}{x}=1tag1
$$
That is, for small angles, $sin(x)simtan(x)sim x$. The actual ordering for $|x|ltfracpi2$ is
$$
frac{sin(x)}{x}le1lefrac{tan(x)}{x}tag2
$$
Furthermore, when $x$ is in radians, we have the nice series
$$
sin(x)=sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^nfrac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}tag3
$$
and the value of
$$
arctan(x)=sum_{n=0}^infty(-1)^nfrac{x^{2n+1}}{2n+1}tag4
$$
is in radians.
Radians are also natural because an arc which subtends $x$ radians on a circle of radius $r$ has length $rx$.
So when we talk about angles, and don't mention the units, we assume radians.
The Exponential of Imaginary Numbers
For $xinmathbb{R}$, we can write
$$
e^x=lim_{ntoinfty}left(1+frac xnright)^ntag5
$$
so it seems reasonable to write
$$
e^{ix}=lim_{ntoinfty}left(1+frac{ix}nright)^ntag6
$$
Multiplication by $1+frac{ix}n$ increases the absolute value so minimally, that even when repeated $n$ times, it is insignificant as $ntoinfty$. However, multiplication by $1+frac{ix}n$ rotates a number on the unit circle by a distance of $frac xn$ counter-clockwise along the circle. When this is repeated $n$ times, it rotates a number on the unit circle by a distance of $x$.
Thus, $e^{ix}$ is a point on the unit circle whose counter-clockwise distance from $1+0i$ is $x$. This is why we use radians when saying
$$
e^{ix}=cos(x)+isin(x)tag7
$$
To see a more detailed explanation of $(7)$, see this answer.
edited Jan 18 at 23:31
answered Jan 18 at 21:10
robjohn♦robjohn
268k27308632
268k27308632
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just a little note that I hope can be of some use. In order to avoid confusion when dealing with angles and unit of measures of them, one can directly define the trigonometric functions starting with the arc lenght measurement.
Consider the semicircle of equation
$$f(x) = sqrt{1-x^2}, xin [-1,1].$$
It is relatively easy to show that the arc length between point $(y, f(y))$ and point $(1,0)$ can be computed with the (improper) integral
$$A(y) = int_y^1frac{1}{sqrt{1-x^2}}dx, yin [-1, 1].$$
Here the unit of measure is clearly the same as the one used for determining abscissae and ordinates.
$A(y)$ is continuous in $[-1,1]$, differentiable in $(-1,1)$, and strictly decreasing. So it has a well defined inverse function
$$A^{-1}(x)= cos(x)$$
with domain $[0, pi]$, where, by definition $A(-1) = pi$. The rest of the cosine function can be defined using appropriate shifts and periodicity.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That makes sense for defining these functions, I hadn't thought of that.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just a little note that I hope can be of some use. In order to avoid confusion when dealing with angles and unit of measures of them, one can directly define the trigonometric functions starting with the arc lenght measurement.
Consider the semicircle of equation
$$f(x) = sqrt{1-x^2}, xin [-1,1].$$
It is relatively easy to show that the arc length between point $(y, f(y))$ and point $(1,0)$ can be computed with the (improper) integral
$$A(y) = int_y^1frac{1}{sqrt{1-x^2}}dx, yin [-1, 1].$$
Here the unit of measure is clearly the same as the one used for determining abscissae and ordinates.
$A(y)$ is continuous in $[-1,1]$, differentiable in $(-1,1)$, and strictly decreasing. So it has a well defined inverse function
$$A^{-1}(x)= cos(x)$$
with domain $[0, pi]$, where, by definition $A(-1) = pi$. The rest of the cosine function can be defined using appropriate shifts and periodicity.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That makes sense for defining these functions, I hadn't thought of that.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just a little note that I hope can be of some use. In order to avoid confusion when dealing with angles and unit of measures of them, one can directly define the trigonometric functions starting with the arc lenght measurement.
Consider the semicircle of equation
$$f(x) = sqrt{1-x^2}, xin [-1,1].$$
It is relatively easy to show that the arc length between point $(y, f(y))$ and point $(1,0)$ can be computed with the (improper) integral
$$A(y) = int_y^1frac{1}{sqrt{1-x^2}}dx, yin [-1, 1].$$
Here the unit of measure is clearly the same as the one used for determining abscissae and ordinates.
$A(y)$ is continuous in $[-1,1]$, differentiable in $(-1,1)$, and strictly decreasing. So it has a well defined inverse function
$$A^{-1}(x)= cos(x)$$
with domain $[0, pi]$, where, by definition $A(-1) = pi$. The rest of the cosine function can be defined using appropriate shifts and periodicity.
$endgroup$
Just a little note that I hope can be of some use. In order to avoid confusion when dealing with angles and unit of measures of them, one can directly define the trigonometric functions starting with the arc lenght measurement.
Consider the semicircle of equation
$$f(x) = sqrt{1-x^2}, xin [-1,1].$$
It is relatively easy to show that the arc length between point $(y, f(y))$ and point $(1,0)$ can be computed with the (improper) integral
$$A(y) = int_y^1frac{1}{sqrt{1-x^2}}dx, yin [-1, 1].$$
Here the unit of measure is clearly the same as the one used for determining abscissae and ordinates.
$A(y)$ is continuous in $[-1,1]$, differentiable in $(-1,1)$, and strictly decreasing. So it has a well defined inverse function
$$A^{-1}(x)= cos(x)$$
with domain $[0, pi]$, where, by definition $A(-1) = pi$. The rest of the cosine function can be defined using appropriate shifts and periodicity.
answered Jan 18 at 23:56
MatteoMatteo
698310
698310
$begingroup$
That makes sense for defining these functions, I hadn't thought of that.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That makes sense for defining these functions, I hadn't thought of that.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:39
$begingroup$
That makes sense for defining these functions, I hadn't thought of that.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:39
$begingroup$
That makes sense for defining these functions, I hadn't thought of that.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Thoburn
Jan 19 at 12:39
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
What difference do you see between an "angle" and a "number"?
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 18 at 19:32
1
$begingroup$
Something that will help you understand this is that there is no difference between "pi" and "pi radians" because radians are not actually a unit. Imagine a perfect slice removed from a perfectly circular pie. The straight edge of the slice is the radius of the pie, let's say, 13cm. The curved edge of the slice is a circular arc. Let's suppose it is exactly 14cm in your slice. The ratio of 14cm/13cm is 14/13 -- the units cancel. And that is how many radians the angle formed by your slice of pie at the center of the pie is.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:09
1
$begingroup$
If your slice is a quarter of the pie, and the pie radius is 13cm, then the arc will be 13pi/2 cm, and the ratio (13pi / 2) cm / 13cm is pi/2. NO UNITS. We only call this ratio "radians" as a convenience; radians actually have no units at all. Radians are just unitless numbers like any other number. They are useful for measuring angles because the ratio of the length of the radius to the arc is invariant under any scale; if you make the radius twice as big, and you make the arc twice as big too, the angle doesn't change, and obviously the ratio doesn't either.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:11
2
$begingroup$
So, do not think of the angle in the exponent as being an angle at all. Think of it as being the ratio of the arc length to the radius length, and it will all make sense.
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
Jan 19 at 1:15
2
$begingroup$
I don't think this should be regarded as a duplicate question. The post maybe is not very well summarized in the title and that creates some confusion.
$endgroup$
– Matteo
Jan 19 at 13:23