Euler's identity is named after the Swiss mathematicianLeonhard Euler. It is a special case ofEuler's formula when evaluated for. Euler's identity is considered an exemplar ofmathematical beauty, as it shows a profound connection between the most fundamental numbers in mathematics. In addition, it is directly used ina proof[3][4] thatπ istranscendental, which implies the impossibility ofsquaring the circle.
The equation is often given in the form of an expression set equal to zero, which is common practice in several areas of mathematics.
Stanford University mathematics professorKeith Devlin has said, "like a Shakespeareansonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's equation reaches down into the very depths of existence".[7]Paul Nahin, a professor emeritus at theUniversity of New Hampshire who wrote a book dedicated toEuler's formula and its applications inFourier analysis, said Euler's identity is "of exquisite beauty".[8]
Mathematics writerConstance Reid has said that Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics".[9]Benjamin Peirce, a 19th-century American philosopher, mathematician, and professor atHarvard University, after proving Euler's identity during a lecture, said that it "is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth".[10]
In this animationN takes various increasing values from 1 to 100. The computation of(1 +iπ/N)N is displayed as the combined effect ofN repeated multiplications in thecomplex plane, with the final point being the actual value of(1 +iπ/N)N. It can be seen that asN gets larger(1 +iπ/N)N approaches a limit of −1.
Euler's identity asserts that is equal to −1. The expression is a special case of the expression, wherez is anycomplex number. In general, is defined for complexz by extending one of thedefinitions of the exponential function from real exponents to complex exponents. For example, one common definition is:
Euler's identity therefore states that the limit, asn approaches infinity, of is equal to −1. This limit is illustrated in the animation to the right.
Any complex number can be represented by the point on thecomplex plane. This point can also be represented inpolar coordinates as, wherer is the absolute value ofz (distance from the origin), and is the argument ofz (angle counterclockwise from the positivex-axis). By the definitions of sine and cosine, this point has cartesian coordinates of, implying that. According to Euler's formula, this is equivalent to saying.
Euler's identity says that. Since is forr = 1 and, this can be interpreted as a fact about the number −1 on the complex plane: its distance from the origin is 1, and its angle from the positivex-axis is radians.
Additionally, when any complex numberz ismultiplied by, it has the effect of rotating counterclockwise by an angle of on the complex plane. Since multiplication by −1 reflects a point across the origin, Euler's identity can be interpreted as saying that rotating any point radians around the origin has the same effect as reflecting the point across the origin. Similarly, setting equal to yields the related equation which can be interpreted as saying that rotating any point by oneturn around the origin returns it to its original position.
More generally, letq be a quaternion with a zero real part and a norm equal to 1; that is, with Then one has
The same formula applies tooctonions, with a zero real part and a norm equal to 1. These formulas are a direct generalization of Euler's identity, since and are the only complex numbers with a zero real part and a norm (absolute value) equal to 1.
Euler's identity is a direct result ofEuler's formula, published in his monumental 1748 work of mathematical analysis,Introductio in analysin infinitorum,[16] but it is questionable whether the particular concept of linking five fundamental constants in a compact form can be attributed to Euler himself, as he may never have expressed it.[17]
We've seen how [Euler's identity] can easily be deduced from results ofJohann Bernoulli andRoger Cotes, but that neither of them seem to have done so. Even Euler does not seem to have written it down explicitly—and certainly it doesn't appear in any of his publications—though he must surely have realized that it follows immediately from his identity [i.e.Euler's formula],eix = cosx +i sinx. Moreover, it seems to be unknown who first stated the result explicitly