The Greatest Formula in Mathematics
Without further ado, here it is:
\[e^{\pi i} +1 = 0\]
It’s usually called Euler’s Identity, after the great Swiss mathematician Leonard Euler (1707 – 1783). It can be seen on tee shirts and coffee mugs, and several polls of mathematicians and physicists have bestowed on it titles such as “the greatest equation ever” (Crease, 2004).
This feeling that that the identity is beautiful and elegant comes from the fact that it combines in a simple form the five most important numbers in mathematics: e, the base of natural logarithms, i, the square root of -1, \(\pi\), 1, and 0. Looking at it closer, most people would wonder about the exponent \(\pi i\) : what does it mean to raise a number to an imaginary power? Patience, patience; we will get to that.
To explain where the formula comes, we must first derive a more general formula that Euler discovered, then show that our identity is just a special case of that formula. The general formula is quite marvelous in itself, and it has far-reaching applications in mathematics, physics, and engineering.
The first step in our journey is to understand that most functions in mathematics can be defined in the form of an infinite sum of powers of the argument. This is an example:
\[\sin(x)\: =\: x\: -\: \frac{x^{3}}{3!}\: \: +\: \frac{x^{5}}{5!}\: -\: \frac{x^{7}}{7!}\: +\: \cdot \cdot \cdot \ \tag{1}\]
Here x is in radians, not degrees. We can get a good approximation of sin(x) for a particular x value by just using the first few terms of the series. This is an example of a Taylor Series, and it is fairly easy to derive this formula using calculus. In this post, I am not presuming a knowledge of calculus, so the reader is asked to take it on faith.
The corresponding formula for the cosine function is:
\[\cos(x)\:=\: 1\: -\: \frac{x^{2}}{2!}\: +\: \frac{x^{4}}{4!}\: -\: \frac{x^{6}}{6!}\: +\: \cdot \cdot \cdot\ \tag{2}\]
Finally, there’s:
\[ e^{x}=\: 1\: +\: x\: +\: \frac{x^{2}}{2!}\: \: +\: \frac{x^{3}}{3!}\: +\: \frac{x^{4}}{4!}\: +\: \cdot \cdot \cdot \tag{3}\]
e is the constant 2.71828…, and Euler had been the first to recognize its fundamental importance in mathematics, and to derive (3) ((1) and (2) were discovered by Isaac Newton). Books have been written about the number e (Maor, 1994), and I may do a future post about it.
Sometime in the year 1740, Euler looked at these three formulas, laid out as we have them here. It’s immediately obvious that every term in (3) also appears in either (1) or (2). However, half the terms in (1) and (2) are negative, whereas every term in (3) is positive. Most people would leave it there, but Euler saw a pattern in all this. He first added (1) and (2):
\[ \sin(x) + \cos(x)\, =1 + x - \frac{x^{2}}{2!} - \frac{x^{3}}{3!} + \frac{x^{4}}{4!} + \frac{x^{5}}{5!}- \frac{x^{6}}{6!} - \frac{x^{7}}{7!} + \cdot \cdot \cdot \tag{4}\]
Notice the sequence of signs in this series: ++ - – ++ - – ++ … , repeating in groups of 4. Euler recognized that this is the same sequence of signs obtained when we raise the imaginary number i to integer powers:
i0 = +1, i1 = +i i2 = -1 i3 = -i i4 = +1 i5 = +i …
This meant he could replace x in (3) with xi to obtain:
Revised 9/12/2010:
\[ e^{xi}\, = 1 + xi - \frac{x^{2}}{2!} - \frac{ix^{3}}{3!} + \frac{x^{4}}{4!} + \frac{ix^{5}}{5!}- \frac{x^{6}}{6!} - \frac{ix^{7}}{7!} + \cdot \cdot \cdot \tag{5}\]
Now the signs match those in (4), and the new series equals (4), except that the terms for sin(x) are multiplied by i. That is, (5) is exactly the same as:
\[ e^{xi}\, = \cos(x) + i\sin(x) \tag{6}\]
This is a surprising and mysterious result; it says that there is an intimate connection between the number e and the sines and cosines of trigonometry, even though e was know only from problems that did not involve geometry or triangles. Besides its elegance and strangeness however, it would be hard to overstate the importance of this formula in the mathematics developed since its discovery. It appears everywhere, and a recent book of some 400 pages was published (Nahin P. Dr. Euler’s Fabulous Formula, 2006) which is devoted to describing some of the formula’s applications.
Notice that the earlier question about imaginary exponents is now resolved: to raise e to an imaginary power, just insert the imaginary number into (6) . If the base is a number other than e, only a slight modification is required.
Now, back to the magic identity. We can substitute any real number x into (6), and the result will be some complex number. One propitious choice for x is x = \(\pi\) . Recall from trigonometry that \(\pi\) radians is 180 degrees. The cosine of 180 degrees is -1, and the sine is 0.
Therefore:
\[ e^{\pi i}\, = -1 + i0, \: \mathrm{or }\; {e^{\pi i}\, +\, 1\, =\, 0} \]
All this provides a hint of the power and creativity of Leonard Euler, and why he is sometimes called the foremost intellect of the eighteenth century. I’ll be doing further posts about him and some of his results, in a series I’ll call Euler’s Greatest Hits.
Bibliography
Crease, R. (2004). The Greatest Equations Ever. Retrieved January 31, 2010, from http://physicsworld.com/: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/20407
Maor, E. (1994). e, the story of a number. Princeton University Press .
Nahin. (2007). An Imaginary Tale: The Story of i. Princeton University Press.
Nahin, P. (2006). Dr. Euler’s Fabulous Formula. Princeton University Press.
Posamentie, A. S. (2004). Pi: A Biography of the World’s Most Mysterious Number. Prometheus Books.
Tags: Math


I'm Larry Phillips, a former engineer, programmer, math teacher, math /physics tutor, and currently owner of a tutoring company. I'm on a mission to show that math is more interesting than the schools made you think it was.
March 13th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
[...] « The Greatest Formula in Mathematics [...]
July 30th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Equation (5) does not follow from equation (3) with x replaced by ix.
September 18th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Jim W. is correct – Equation (5) has an error. The real and imaginary terms were reversed. Just now getting around to correcting it.
October 10th, 2010 at 6:28 am
I truly do like your forum. Kindly keep up the good work. I respect authors who consistently use rudimental content.
November 17th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Rather nicely put.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:18 am
I can’t but agree. I always planned to write in my site something similar to that but I think you’r faster.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:47 am
A very good and simple enough explanation of such a wonderful formula!
February 9th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Amazing , this article gives me the inhalation . Thank you.Oakley sunglasses, Chanel Sunglasses sale, Top Chanel outlet .
March 10th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
“If the base is a number other than e, only a slight modification is required.”
and what is the modification?
March 11th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Good question.
First consider the natural logarithm of a number b, that is, ln(b). By definition, this is the exponent of e which will give the number b. Thus b can be written as e^ln(b).
So, b^(xi) can be written (e^ln(b))^(xi) = e^(ln(b)*xi).
For example,
3^(2i) = e^(ln(3)*2i) = cos(2 ln(3)) + i sin(2 ln(3))
May 5th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. this is very nice one and gives indepth information. thanks for this nice article
July 16th, 2011 at 11:15 am
Do you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your website? My website is in the exact same niche as yours and my users would certainly benefit from some of the information you present here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Cheers!
July 28th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Throughout the awesome design of things you actually get a B- for effort and hard work. Exactly where you actually lost me personally ended up being on the specifics. You know, people say, the devil is in the details… And it could not be more accurate right here. Having said that, allow me tell you exactly what did give good results. The article (parts of it) is incredibly convincing which is probably the reason why I am making the effort to comment. I do not really make it a regular habit of doing that. Next, even though I can certainly see a jumps in logic you come up with, I am not sure of how you seem to connect the ideas which in turn help to make the actual conclusion. For the moment I will yield to your point however trust in the foreseeable future you actually connect your facts better.
August 20th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Permission is hereby granted to use quotes from any articles here, or to reference individual posts, provided the source is acknowledged.
Larry Phillips
Atlanta
August 28th, 2011 at 1:26 am
Hey how do you think you’re. I discovered your web site by using Google and I just desired to say that I believe your producing is just beautiful! Many thanks yet again for offering this articles and other content totally free.
September 29th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
I am not sure where you’re getting your info, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic information I was looking for this info for my mission.