Talk:E (mathematics): Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Warren Schudy
(New page: {{subpages}} ==Intro== The introduction states that the exponential function is the only function equal to its derivative. This isn't quite right; and constant multiple of the exponentia...)
 
imported>David E. Volk
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{lowercase|title=e}}
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}


Line 4: Line 5:


The introduction states that the exponential function is the only function equal to its derivative. This isn't quite right; and constant multiple of the exponential function works too. I'll try to find a way to make it correct without being ugly. [[User:Warren Schudy|Warren Schudy]] 17:14, 9 January 2008 (CST)
The introduction states that the exponential function is the only function equal to its derivative. This isn't quite right; and constant multiple of the exponential function works too. I'll try to find a way to make it correct without being ugly. [[User:Warren Schudy|Warren Schudy]] 17:14, 9 January 2008 (CST)
: Corrected. [[User:Olier Raby|Olier Raby]] 05:18, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
== some equations too small ==
I suggest reformatting the equations stuck in the text of paragraphs 1 and 4, because they are really to small to be easily read.  Also, be sure to indent equations with the use of a leading semicolon or two. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 10:20, 24 February 2008 (CST)
: Done. [[User:Olier Raby|Olier Raby]] 05:18, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
== renaming of this article ==
We will need to rename this article because [[User:Ro Thorpe]] is going to make an article about the letter E/e.  My immediate thought is to rename it e (exponential base), but input from mathematicians would help.  If possible, I would like the primary author to make the move. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 13:25, 29 February 2008 (CST)
I'm not totally happy with "e (exponential base)", but it's the best I've heard so far. This isn't a critical decision; someone who knows how to move subpages should just do it. We can always move it again later if we get a better idea! [[User:Warren Schudy|Warren Schudy]] 14:38, 29 February 2008 (CST)
:I'd suggest [[e (math)]] or [[e (mathematics)]], and make sure Ro puts a disambiguation link to this article at the top of his article about the letter. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 15:54, 29 February 2008 (CST)
:: I moved the article and subpages to [[e (math)]], created the disambiguation page at [[E (disambiguation)]] and made a stub article, with all subpages also for [[E (letter)]]. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 16:37, 29 February 2008 (CST)
::: I believe it is better to name it [[e (mathematics)]]. [[User:Olier Raby|Olier Raby]] 05:19, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
== Is equation missing a summation sign? ==
There are many ways to define ''e''. The most common are probably
::<math> e = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (1 + \frac{1}{n})^n</math>
The above equation would have a value of 1 for n=infinity, suggesting that a summation symbol over n is missing.  [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 09:57, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
: There is no summation symbol in the equation. Compute for instance
::<math> (1 + \frac{1}{1000})^{1000} ~= 2,71692393223...</math>
: and
::<math> (1 + \frac{1}{1000000})^{1000000} ~= 2,71828046931...</math>
: Regards, [[User:Olier Raby|Olier Raby]] 03:30, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
I missed the exponent "n".  Thanks for the reply. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 09:06, 14 March 2008 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 08:06, 14 March 2008


This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Constant real number equal to 2.71828 18284 59045 23536... that is the base of the natural logarithms. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Mathematics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Intro

The introduction states that the exponential function is the only function equal to its derivative. This isn't quite right; and constant multiple of the exponential function works too. I'll try to find a way to make it correct without being ugly. Warren Schudy 17:14, 9 January 2008 (CST)

Corrected. Olier Raby 05:18, 13 March 2008 (CDT)

some equations too small

I suggest reformatting the equations stuck in the text of paragraphs 1 and 4, because they are really to small to be easily read. Also, be sure to indent equations with the use of a leading semicolon or two. David E. Volk 10:20, 24 February 2008 (CST)

Done. Olier Raby 05:18, 13 March 2008 (CDT)

renaming of this article

We will need to rename this article because User:Ro Thorpe is going to make an article about the letter E/e. My immediate thought is to rename it e (exponential base), but input from mathematicians would help. If possible, I would like the primary author to make the move. David E. Volk 13:25, 29 February 2008 (CST)

I'm not totally happy with "e (exponential base)", but it's the best I've heard so far. This isn't a critical decision; someone who knows how to move subpages should just do it. We can always move it again later if we get a better idea! Warren Schudy 14:38, 29 February 2008 (CST)

I'd suggest e (math) or e (mathematics), and make sure Ro puts a disambiguation link to this article at the top of his article about the letter. Anthony Argyriou 15:54, 29 February 2008 (CST)
I moved the article and subpages to e (math), created the disambiguation page at E (disambiguation) and made a stub article, with all subpages also for E (letter). David E. Volk 16:37, 29 February 2008 (CST)
I believe it is better to name it e (mathematics). Olier Raby 05:19, 13 March 2008 (CDT)

Is equation missing a summation sign?

There are many ways to define e. The most common are probably

The above equation would have a value of 1 for n=infinity, suggesting that a summation symbol over n is missing. David E. Volk 09:57, 13 March 2008 (CDT)

There is no summation symbol in the equation. Compute for instance
and
Regards, Olier Raby 03:30, 14 March 2008 (CDT)

I missed the exponent "n". Thanks for the reply. David E. Volk 09:06, 14 March 2008 (CDT)