Prove the famous identity
Thank you Moo, that is much simpler.
Here is another proof I thought of today. Taking the logarithmic derivative of, we get
, and this goes to
as
. Hence the function
satisfies
for all complex
, and it follows that
Edit : oops, this is exactly what Random Variable did![]()
"To prove" means to argue for the validity of a statement based on prior knowledge. But what prior knowledge are we allowed to presuppose? In introductory courses, for example, this limit is sometimes used to define. Therefore, no prior knowledge of this function or its inverse may be used to show the existence of the limit in such a case.

Instead of involving logarithm and its development in the neighbourhood of 1, we can use (in a more "algebraic" way) the power series definition of the exponential:.
We develop![]()
.
For a fixed, the ratio
tends to 1 (the numerator is a monic polynomial of degree
in the variable
).
"Formally", we thus have.
The good point of this proof is that we can "see" why the limit is the exponential; this may have been Euler's way to prove the formula. However, it is not trivial to prove the limit rigorously (there is a summation in, not a fixed index...). This can probably be done elementarily, but here is a short not-so-elementary way. We have
where
for
, and
otherwise. For fixed
,
. The previous ratio is bounded by 1, hence
for all
. We have
, therefore we can apply the bounded convergence theorem to take the limit in
in the summation.
En passant: you probably meant little o's. Indeed,is a bounded sequence, and not a sequence converging toward
(contrary to
). The first two lines were correct, but you couldn't deduce the limit with big O's.
If you use a functionand try to find its derivative, by defining
as the value of
that makes
we have...
.
For the function to be its own derivative, we would require that
and for simplicity, we will now use the symbolto represent this particular value of
.
So we have
.
Now by letting, we notice that as
.
So
Can you go from here?
But if you separate the limits then you may change the speeds of the variables, i.e., you may useinstead of
, which will lead you to a different result...
Also in (**), you can not take the poweroutside the limit either since it is not a constant, i.e., depends on the limit variable...
A simple note.
provided that
.