Why aren't there more numbers like $e$, $pi$, and $i$? This is based on looking through the Handbook of...
$begingroup$
This is kind of a big picture question. I just counted up all the symbols used in normal mathematics and, give or take, there are probably around 150 of them, tops. And that's really stretching things. I am including:
- the transpose symbol in linear algebra,
- the gamma function symbol,
- the direct sum symbol for two vector spaces,
- the tensor product symbol,
- ...
I am including a lot of seemingly esoteric stuff! Even so, no matter what formula spits out of Wolfram Alpha, or no matter where you look in the Handbook of Mathematical Functions, for practical applied math purposes there really aren't that many symbols. That got me to thinking: we have these famous numbers $e$, $i$, and $pi$. They are related by the famous Euler formula which blows everybody's mind when they first see it, except for, reportedly, Gauss.
$pi$ relates to the circle. $e$ relates to rate of change -- relates to integration and differentiation somehow. $i$ gives us an extra number dimension to solve problems.
Question: Why aren't there more of these numbers? Is it the case that $99$% of all important mathematics in practice is covered by the rationals, operations like taking rational roots, the vast swath of anonymous, non-name-worthy irrational & transcendental reals, and $e$, $i$ and $pi$?
What is it about these three numbers that makes them, in effect, practically the only important numbers in mathematics other than those that can be expressed in terms of regular numbers? Is it because this circle relationship, this extra dimension thing with $i$, and this rate of change thing with $e$, covers all the really important relationships between the dimensions? I really want someone to break this down for me and tell me why this is the case.
soft-question big-picture
edited Dec 13 '18 at 9:35
Klangen
1,72811334
asked Jan 19 '13 at 8:02
user58450user58450
1408
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is kind of a big picture question. I just counted up all the symbols used in normal mathematics and, give or take, there are probably around 150 of them, tops. And that's really stretching things. I am including:
- the transpose symbol in linear algebra,
- the gamma function symbol,
- the direct sum symbol for two vector spaces,
- the tensor product symbol,
- ...
I am including a lot of seemingly esoteric stuff! Even so, no matter what formula spits out of Wolfram Alpha, or no matter where you look in the Handbook of Mathematical Functions, for practical applied math purposes there really aren't that many symbols. That got me to thinking: we have these famous numbers $e$, $i$, and $pi$. They are related by the famous Euler formula which blows everybody's mind when they first see it, except for, reportedly, Gauss.
$pi$ relates to the circle. $e$ relates to rate of change -- relates to integration and differentiation somehow. $i$ gives us an extra number dimension to solve problems.
Question: Why aren't there more of these numbers? Is it the case that $99$% of all important mathematics in practice is covered by the rationals, operations like taking rational roots, the vast swath of anonymous, non-name-worthy irrational & transcendental reals, and $e$, $i$ and $pi$?
What is it about these three numbers that makes them, in effect, practically the only important numbers in mathematics other than those that can be expressed in terms of regular numbers? Is it because this circle relationship, this extra dimension thing with $i$, and this rate of change thing with $e$, covers all the really important relationships between the dimensions? I really want someone to break this down for me and tell me why this is the case.
soft-question big-picture
edited Dec 13 '18 at 9:35
Klangen
1,72811334
asked Jan 19 '13 at 8:02
user58450user58450
1408
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
First, mathematics is hardly about numbers anymore. Second, if you are not a professional mathematician how can you tell which symbols are esoteric?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Asaf, re math not being about numbers anymore, I am not sure I understand that statement completely. Don't all the letters ultimately represent sets of numbers, in the end? On the second point, I am sure I am wrong about calling anything "esoteric", maybe a bad choice of words. So I withdraw that adjective. It is just really interesting to me that so few numbers are so important and I wonder if anyone has a perspective on why that is the case.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 19 '13 at 8:27
4
$begingroup$
Mathematics is about numbers as much as linguistics and literature are about letters.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:33
1
$begingroup$
If you're just counting symbols, there are not that many because it's hard to invent a new symbol when it's not available in standard fonts/keyboards/etc. Even if you're inventing something new, it's easier to just re-use an existing symbol and explain the meaning.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jan 19 '13 at 8:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is kind of a big picture question. I just counted up all the symbols used in normal mathematics and, give or take, there are probably around 150 of them, tops. And that's really stretching things. I am including:
- the transpose symbol in linear algebra,
- the gamma function symbol,
- the direct sum symbol for two vector spaces,
- the tensor product symbol,
- ...
I am including a lot of seemingly esoteric stuff! Even so, no matter what formula spits out of Wolfram Alpha, or no matter where you look in the Handbook of Mathematical Functions, for practical applied math purposes there really aren't that many symbols. That got me to thinking: we have these famous numbers $e$, $i$, and $pi$. They are related by the famous Euler formula which blows everybody's mind when they first see it, except for, reportedly, Gauss.
$pi$ relates to the circle. $e$ relates to rate of change -- relates to integration and differentiation somehow. $i$ gives us an extra number dimension to solve problems.
Question: Why aren't there more of these numbers? Is it the case that $99$% of all important mathematics in practice is covered by the rationals, operations like taking rational roots, the vast swath of anonymous, non-name-worthy irrational & transcendental reals, and $e$, $i$ and $pi$?
What is it about these three numbers that makes them, in effect, practically the only important numbers in mathematics other than those that can be expressed in terms of regular numbers? Is it because this circle relationship, this extra dimension thing with $i$, and this rate of change thing with $e$, covers all the really important relationships between the dimensions? I really want someone to break this down for me and tell me why this is the case.
soft-question big-picture
edited Dec 13 '18 at 9:35
Klangen
1,72811334
asked Jan 19 '13 at 8:02
user58450user58450
1408
$endgroup$
This is kind of a big picture question. I just counted up all the symbols used in normal mathematics and, give or take, there are probably around 150 of them, tops. And that's really stretching things. I am including:
- the transpose symbol in linear algebra,
- the gamma function symbol,
- the direct sum symbol for two vector spaces,
- the tensor product symbol,
- ...
I am including a lot of seemingly esoteric stuff! Even so, no matter what formula spits out of Wolfram Alpha, or no matter where you look in the Handbook of Mathematical Functions, for practical applied math purposes there really aren't that many symbols. That got me to thinking: we have these famous numbers $e$, $i$, and $pi$. They are related by the famous Euler formula which blows everybody's mind when they first see it, except for, reportedly, Gauss.
$pi$ relates to the circle. $e$ relates to rate of change -- relates to integration and differentiation somehow. $i$ gives us an extra number dimension to solve problems.
Question: Why aren't there more of these numbers? Is it the case that $99$% of all important mathematics in practice is covered by the rationals, operations like taking rational roots, the vast swath of anonymous, non-name-worthy irrational & transcendental reals, and $e$, $i$ and $pi$?
What is it about these three numbers that makes them, in effect, practically the only important numbers in mathematics other than those that can be expressed in terms of regular numbers? Is it because this circle relationship, this extra dimension thing with $i$, and this rate of change thing with $e$, covers all the really important relationships between the dimensions? I really want someone to break this down for me and tell me why this is the case.
soft-question big-picture
soft-question big-picture
edited Dec 13 '18 at 9:35
Klangen
1,72811334
asked Jan 19 '13 at 8:02
user58450user58450
1408
edited Dec 13 '18 at 9:35
Klangen
1,72811334
asked Jan 19 '13 at 8:02
user58450user58450
1408
edited Dec 13 '18 at 9:35
Klangen
1,72811334
edited Dec 13 '18 at 9:35
Klangen
1,72811334
edited Dec 13 '18 at 9:35
Klangen
1,72811334
1,72811334
asked Jan 19 '13 at 8:02
user58450user58450
1408
asked Jan 19 '13 at 8:02
user58450user58450
1408
asked Jan 19 '13 at 8:02
user58450user58450
1408
1408
1
$begingroup$
First, mathematics is hardly about numbers anymore. Second, if you are not a professional mathematician how can you tell which symbols are esoteric?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Asaf, re math not being about numbers anymore, I am not sure I understand that statement completely. Don't all the letters ultimately represent sets of numbers, in the end? On the second point, I am sure I am wrong about calling anything "esoteric", maybe a bad choice of words. So I withdraw that adjective. It is just really interesting to me that so few numbers are so important and I wonder if anyone has a perspective on why that is the case.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 19 '13 at 8:27
4
$begingroup$
Mathematics is about numbers as much as linguistics and literature are about letters.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:33
1
$begingroup$
If you're just counting symbols, there are not that many because it's hard to invent a new symbol when it's not available in standard fonts/keyboards/etc. Even if you're inventing something new, it's easier to just re-use an existing symbol and explain the meaning.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jan 19 '13 at 8:48
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
First, mathematics is hardly about numbers anymore. Second, if you are not a professional mathematician how can you tell which symbols are esoteric?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Asaf, re math not being about numbers anymore, I am not sure I understand that statement completely. Don't all the letters ultimately represent sets of numbers, in the end? On the second point, I am sure I am wrong about calling anything "esoteric", maybe a bad choice of words. So I withdraw that adjective. It is just really interesting to me that so few numbers are so important and I wonder if anyone has a perspective on why that is the case.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 19 '13 at 8:27
4
$begingroup$
Mathematics is about numbers as much as linguistics and literature are about letters.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:33
1
$begingroup$
If you're just counting symbols, there are not that many because it's hard to invent a new symbol when it's not available in standard fonts/keyboards/etc. Even if you're inventing something new, it's easier to just re-use an existing symbol and explain the meaning.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jan 19 '13 at 8:48
1
1
$begingroup$
First, mathematics is hardly about numbers anymore. Second, if you are not a professional mathematician how can you tell which symbols are esoteric?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:11
$begingroup$
First, mathematics is hardly about numbers anymore. Second, if you are not a professional mathematician how can you tell which symbols are esoteric?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Asaf, re math not being about numbers anymore, I am not sure I understand that statement completely. Don't all the letters ultimately represent sets of numbers, in the end? On the second point, I am sure I am wrong about calling anything "esoteric", maybe a bad choice of words. So I withdraw that adjective. It is just really interesting to me that so few numbers are so important and I wonder if anyone has a perspective on why that is the case.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 19 '13 at 8:27
$begingroup$
Asaf, re math not being about numbers anymore, I am not sure I understand that statement completely. Don't all the letters ultimately represent sets of numbers, in the end? On the second point, I am sure I am wrong about calling anything "esoteric", maybe a bad choice of words. So I withdraw that adjective. It is just really interesting to me that so few numbers are so important and I wonder if anyone has a perspective on why that is the case.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 19 '13 at 8:27
4
4
$begingroup$
Mathematics is about numbers as much as linguistics and literature are about letters.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:33
$begingroup$
Mathematics is about numbers as much as linguistics and literature are about letters.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:33
1
1
$begingroup$
If you're just counting symbols, there are not that many because it's hard to invent a new symbol when it's not available in standard fonts/keyboards/etc. Even if you're inventing something new, it's easier to just re-use an existing symbol and explain the meaning.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jan 19 '13 at 8:48
$begingroup$
If you're just counting symbols, there are not that many because it's hard to invent a new symbol when it's not available in standard fonts/keyboards/etc. Even if you're inventing something new, it's easier to just re-use an existing symbol and explain the meaning.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jan 19 '13 at 8:48
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_constants where you will find any number of important mathematical constants which have no known expression in terms of $e$, $i$, and $pi$. The Euler-Mascheroni constant, $gamma$, is a biggie in analytic number theory. $zeta(3)$ was immortalized by Apery. Feigenbaum's constant $delta$ is super-important in dynamical systems and transition to chaos. Khinchin's constant $K$ is big in continued fractions. And so on.
answered Jan 19 '13 at 9:18
Gerry MyersonGerry Myerson
146k8147299
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Many thanks! I should have checked before I stated there were only three important constants. What I was really hoping for with this question was to see if some kind of deep geometric intuition exists -- e.g. perhaps the circle, the relationship via e between differentiation and integration, and i might (I was thinking) essentially encapsulate a huge amount of geometric information about the relationships between the dimensions, and therefore maybe that's why they show up all the time in formulas. But perhaps it's not so, as you have pointed to many examples of other important constants.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 23 '13 at 9:11
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f281848%2fwhy-arent-there-more-numbers-like-e-pi-and-i-this-is-based-on-looking%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_constants where you will find any number of important mathematical constants which have no known expression in terms of $e$, $i$, and $pi$. The Euler-Mascheroni constant, $gamma$, is a biggie in analytic number theory. $zeta(3)$ was immortalized by Apery. Feigenbaum's constant $delta$ is super-important in dynamical systems and transition to chaos. Khinchin's constant $K$ is big in continued fractions. And so on.
answered Jan 19 '13 at 9:18
Gerry MyersonGerry Myerson
146k8147299
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Many thanks! I should have checked before I stated there were only three important constants. What I was really hoping for with this question was to see if some kind of deep geometric intuition exists -- e.g. perhaps the circle, the relationship via e between differentiation and integration, and i might (I was thinking) essentially encapsulate a huge amount of geometric information about the relationships between the dimensions, and therefore maybe that's why they show up all the time in formulas. But perhaps it's not so, as you have pointed to many examples of other important constants.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 23 '13 at 9:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_constants where you will find any number of important mathematical constants which have no known expression in terms of $e$, $i$, and $pi$. The Euler-Mascheroni constant, $gamma$, is a biggie in analytic number theory. $zeta(3)$ was immortalized by Apery. Feigenbaum's constant $delta$ is super-important in dynamical systems and transition to chaos. Khinchin's constant $K$ is big in continued fractions. And so on.
answered Jan 19 '13 at 9:18
Gerry MyersonGerry Myerson
146k8147299
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Many thanks! I should have checked before I stated there were only three important constants. What I was really hoping for with this question was to see if some kind of deep geometric intuition exists -- e.g. perhaps the circle, the relationship via e between differentiation and integration, and i might (I was thinking) essentially encapsulate a huge amount of geometric information about the relationships between the dimensions, and therefore maybe that's why they show up all the time in formulas. But perhaps it's not so, as you have pointed to many examples of other important constants.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 23 '13 at 9:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_constants where you will find any number of important mathematical constants which have no known expression in terms of $e$, $i$, and $pi$. The Euler-Mascheroni constant, $gamma$, is a biggie in analytic number theory. $zeta(3)$ was immortalized by Apery. Feigenbaum's constant $delta$ is super-important in dynamical systems and transition to chaos. Khinchin's constant $K$ is big in continued fractions. And so on.
answered Jan 19 '13 at 9:18
Gerry MyersonGerry Myerson
146k8147299
$endgroup$
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_constants where you will find any number of important mathematical constants which have no known expression in terms of $e$, $i$, and $pi$. The Euler-Mascheroni constant, $gamma$, is a biggie in analytic number theory. $zeta(3)$ was immortalized by Apery. Feigenbaum's constant $delta$ is super-important in dynamical systems and transition to chaos. Khinchin's constant $K$ is big in continued fractions. And so on.
answered Jan 19 '13 at 9:18
Gerry MyersonGerry Myerson
146k8147299
answered Jan 19 '13 at 9:18
Gerry MyersonGerry Myerson
146k8147299
answered Jan 19 '13 at 9:18
Gerry MyersonGerry Myerson
146k8147299
answered Jan 19 '13 at 9:18
Gerry MyersonGerry Myerson
146k8147299
146k8147299
1
$begingroup$
Many thanks! I should have checked before I stated there were only three important constants. What I was really hoping for with this question was to see if some kind of deep geometric intuition exists -- e.g. perhaps the circle, the relationship via e between differentiation and integration, and i might (I was thinking) essentially encapsulate a huge amount of geometric information about the relationships between the dimensions, and therefore maybe that's why they show up all the time in formulas. But perhaps it's not so, as you have pointed to many examples of other important constants.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 23 '13 at 9:11
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Many thanks! I should have checked before I stated there were only three important constants. What I was really hoping for with this question was to see if some kind of deep geometric intuition exists -- e.g. perhaps the circle, the relationship via e between differentiation and integration, and i might (I was thinking) essentially encapsulate a huge amount of geometric information about the relationships between the dimensions, and therefore maybe that's why they show up all the time in formulas. But perhaps it's not so, as you have pointed to many examples of other important constants.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 23 '13 at 9:11
1
1
$begingroup$
Many thanks! I should have checked before I stated there were only three important constants. What I was really hoping for with this question was to see if some kind of deep geometric intuition exists -- e.g. perhaps the circle, the relationship via e between differentiation and integration, and i might (I was thinking) essentially encapsulate a huge amount of geometric information about the relationships between the dimensions, and therefore maybe that's why they show up all the time in formulas. But perhaps it's not so, as you have pointed to many examples of other important constants.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 23 '13 at 9:11
$begingroup$
Many thanks! I should have checked before I stated there were only three important constants. What I was really hoping for with this question was to see if some kind of deep geometric intuition exists -- e.g. perhaps the circle, the relationship via e between differentiation and integration, and i might (I was thinking) essentially encapsulate a huge amount of geometric information about the relationships between the dimensions, and therefore maybe that's why they show up all the time in formulas. But perhaps it's not so, as you have pointed to many examples of other important constants.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 23 '13 at 9:11
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f281848%2fwhy-arent-there-more-numbers-like-e-pi-and-i-this-is-based-on-looking%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
First, mathematics is hardly about numbers anymore. Second, if you are not a professional mathematician how can you tell which symbols are esoteric?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Asaf, re math not being about numbers anymore, I am not sure I understand that statement completely. Don't all the letters ultimately represent sets of numbers, in the end? On the second point, I am sure I am wrong about calling anything "esoteric", maybe a bad choice of words. So I withdraw that adjective. It is just really interesting to me that so few numbers are so important and I wonder if anyone has a perspective on why that is the case.
$endgroup$
– user58450
Jan 19 '13 at 8:27
4
$begingroup$
Mathematics is about numbers as much as linguistics and literature are about letters.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Jan 19 '13 at 8:33
1
$begingroup$
If you're just counting symbols, there are not that many because it's hard to invent a new symbol when it's not available in standard fonts/keyboards/etc. Even if you're inventing something new, it's easier to just re-use an existing symbol and explain the meaning.
$endgroup$
– Ted
Jan 19 '13 at 8:48