Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematica Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Mathematica. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Why is Euler's number an uppercase "E" and not a lowercase "e"?

Isn't Euler's Number normally expressed with a lowercase "e"?

share|improve this question
6  
All MM-defined symbols start with uppercase –  belisarius Sep 11 '12 at 6:37
3  
No need to downvote, guys. –  belisarius Sep 11 '12 at 6:39
5  
You can also typeset it with Esc + ee + Esc... –  Yves Klett Sep 11 '12 at 8:07
1  
...or enter \[ExponentialE] directly. –  J. M. Sep 11 '12 at 8:40
    
And note that the 'e' you obtain from Esc + ee + Esc or from \[ExponentialE] has a doubled stroke on its left, as do the corresponding symbols from \[ImaginaryI] and [\DifferentialD] -- akin to the "blackboard bold" font commonly used in typesetting mathematical documents (e.g., with LaTeX). –  murray Sep 12 '12 at 15:07
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 8 down vote accepted

As often happens here, the comment provides the answer, but here's the answer from Stephen Wolfram's book about Mathematica (the second edition of "Mathematica, a System for Doing Mathematics by Computer" which I bought for £0.01 on Amazon):

Mathematica uses both upper- and lower-case letters. There is a convention that built-in Mathematica objects always have names starting with upper-case (capital) letters. To avoid confusion, you should always choose names for your own variables that start with lower-case letters.

This means that you can use e, i, n, or even sin or pi for your own variables without conflicting with Mathematica's constants and functions.

share|improve this answer
    
Closed? "We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion." you're joking, surely... :) –  cormullion Sep 11 '12 at 15:34
    
I agree, your answer clearly involves a fact. Reopened the question. It seemed to be close to being reopened anyway. –  Sjoerd C. de Vries Sep 11 '12 at 19:20
    
@SjoerdC.deVries Thanks, I wouldn't have bothered, but this was the first question I've been able to answer for ages :) –  cormullion Sep 11 '12 at 19:33
    
Just to explain my vote, I saw this from the review page which does not show the answers. So only the question, which was not really a serious/useful one, was shown with 4 close votes already. Also, the comments seemed to have explained it well, so I cast the final vote. Probably wouldn't have voted had I seen your answer, but someone else would've cast the final one :) –  rm -rf Sep 11 '12 at 21:46
    
@R.M No worries - I'm just being curmudgeonly today... It wasn't much of a question, true, but then it's no worse than this one :) –  cormullion Sep 11 '12 at 22:25
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.