The Many Faces of ex

October 18, 2024

In precalculus, Euler's constant ee is typically introduced in the context of compound interest, usually defined as

e=limn(1+1n)ne = \lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1 + \frac1n\right)^n

which makes sense, but maybe feels a little unmotivated. Then in Calculus I, it gets defined as

ex=n=0xnn!e^x = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!}

which is already confusing; what happened to ex=e×e××ee^x = e \times e \times \cdots \times e, xx times? But then you reach your first differential equations course, where exe^x is defined as the unique solution to

y=yy(0)=1y' = y \\\\ y(0) = 1

And of course, there's always Euler's formula

eiθ=cosθ+isinθe^{i\theta} = \cos\theta + i\sin\theta

leading to the crown jewel of math adorned on the T-shirts of math nerds everywhere, eiπ=1e^{i\pi} = -1. What unifies these seemingly disparate representations?

Exponentials as Flow

We'll reach the true definition of the exponential in due time, but the most helpful stepping stone is its defining differential equation. As you may remember from your first ODEs course, the following system

y=Kyy' = Ky

has the solution y(t)=exp(Kt)y(0)y(t) = \exp(Kt)y(0) (remember, yy can be a vector, in which case KK is a matrix and exp(Kt)\exp(Kt) is computed using the power series). It's easy to verify this algebraically, but let's take a moment to really understand what this system is telling us.

The "relative to your current position" part is crucial; let's review a classic example to understand what's happening here. Remember Euler's formula, eit=cos(t)+isin(t)e^{it} = \cos(t) + i\sin(t)? It tells us that eite^{it} walks us around a circle for tt seconds. Unsurprisingly, it's the solution to the differential equation

y=iyy(0)=1y' = iy \\ y(0) = 1

Again, easy to check algebraically, but what's ii doing there? Well, remember that ii represents a 90° rotation in the complex plane, which means our velocity is always rotated 90° relative to our current position, i.e. it's tangential.

euler

If you remember your physics classes, this diagram should look familiar. If your velocity is always rotated 90° from your position, then you move in a circle. So if your velocity, yy', is always a 90° rotation of your position, iyiy, then of course you move in a circle!

The Lie Connection

More generally, what y=Kyy' = Ky means is that at any point yy in space, the flow direction at that point is KyKy. So if y(t)=exp(Kt)y(0)y(t) = \exp(Kt)y(0) is our solution, that means it must move us along the flow for tt seconds. If we set t=1t = 1 and y(0)=1y(0) = 1, we can flip the definition around to give us exp(K)=y(1)\exp(K) = y(1). A more complete definition is

Consider a path y(t)y(t) starting at the identity, so y(0)=1y(0) = 1. If the velocity at every point is KyKy, then we define exp(K)=y(1)\exp(K) = y(1). More generally, exp(Kt)=y(t)\exp(Kt) = y(t).[1]

It may feel too abstract, but the abstraction lets us think about exp\exp in a much more general way. Returning to the eite^{it} example, Euler's theorem almost becomes trivial: at every point yy, the flow direction is iyiy, so exp(it)\exp(it) walks us along the flow field for tt seconds. The flow field is pointing in a circle, so we walk in a circle!

We can use this definition to help demystify our previous definitions:

But this new definition lets us do a whole lot more:

So why's this section called The Lie Connection? Well, the definition of the exponential from earlier is typically formulated according to Lie Theory (pronounced "Lee"), which explores integration of differential equations on smooth surfaces (manifolds). Lie theory is helpful for working with commonly used rotation groups such as SO(2)SO(2), SO(3)SO(3), and SU(2)SU(2), which are heavily used in optimization and robotics.

If all this abstract exponentiation seems useless, I'll soon be uploading an article on how you can use it to numerically solve partial differential equations!

Update 10/19/24: Here is an appendix demonstrating some algebraic facts about exponentials.

Update 10/24/24: I've posted the article on applications of abstract exponentiation, available here.

  1. We don't actually need to define exp(Kt)\exp(Kt) as y(t)y(t), since it follows from the previous statements. Try proving it yourself! Hint: use the chain rule.
  2. There's a slightly caveat with the power series that often goes unaddressed. We want exp(0)\exp(0) to be 11, but evaluating the power series at 00, we get exp(0)=00\exp(0) = 0^0, which is undefined. The reason we leave 000^0 undefined is because the function xyx^y is discontinuous at (0,0)(0, 0):limx0x0=1limy00y=0\lim_{x \to 0} x^0 = 1 \\ \lim_{y \to 0} 0^y = 0We can eliminate the ambiguity if we only care about continuity from one direction. Since the exponents are integers (so continuity doesn't matter), we can guarantee continuity in xx by defining 00=10^0 = 1 for power series in general.