Math Notes Fall 25
Proof by multiplicative inverse
We have functions .
Given . (they are multiplicative inverses)
We would like to determine whether .
Naturally,
Application
I discovered this trick when searching for a proof to Euler’s Formula:
We define
Naturally, , so
So, if we can prove that , then it is clear that . Introduce for brevity.
Differentiate
That is, for all , which means that is constant for all .
Find value of
So, for all , which shows that is the multiplicative inverse of . Given that is also the multiplicative inverse of :
Source: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/8612
Complex Exponentials and Trigonometric functions
The value of the exponential function with an imaginary input is of interest.
Using the well known series expansion of the exponential function:
Substitute in imaginary constant
There is no direct way to simplify this expression as doesn’t directly work out to anything nice. This expression is equivalent to a few other, more-useful ones.
Now the powers of can be simplified
Back-substituting these into the above sum
Remember the power series for sine and cosine
Reorder series
Split sums based on evens, and odds
Notice the first sum is simply iterating over the even numbers, and the second is iterating over the odds. Simplify
Notice
With Negatives
Recall these two properties of sine and cosine
With that, use the exponential function with a negative imaginary number
We can now solve for cosine and sine using the exponential function.
Clever proof of solutions to linear diophantine equation
A simple result in elementary number theory relates to the linear diophantine equation
A property of this equation (which is not proven here) is that it has infinitely many solutions if is a multiple of , otherwise it has none.
The clever part is, after finding the first solution we can find the rest. Suppose there exists a solution , and that is another solution:
Rearrange equation
Let . Naturally, and are both divisible by . Divide by
Now, and share no common factors, therefor does not divide and does not divide . Note however that does divide the right side of the equation, and therefor must divide the left side of the equation. Because we already determined that does not divide , must divide , thus must be a multiple of (likewise is a multiple of ).
State that is a multiple of in a new equation:
Likewise of
Thus, given the initial solutions of , the other solutions are found as:
This proof is not complete but highlights the clever trick of extracting an equation based on divisibility. It comes down to the (often subtle) fact that when divides , .