Compound Interest and the Number e
Why interest on interest turns a straight line into a curve. The formula A = P(1 + r/n)^nt, what happens as compounding gets more frequent, and how pushing it to the limit produces e.
Why interest on interest turns a straight line into a curve. The formula A = P(1 + r/n)^nt, what happens as compounding gets more frequent, and how pushing it to the limit produces e.
Simple interest pays you on your original deposit and nothing more. Compound interest pays you on your deposit and on the interest already earned — so the earnings themselves start earning. That single difference turns a straight line into an exponential curve, and pushing it to its limit produces one of the most important numbers in mathematics.
Read the structure and it explains itself. Each period adds a fraction of the current balance, and there are
such periods in total — so the multiplier
is applied
times over.
Over a year or two the gap is small. Over decades it becomes the whole story — which is why compound interest matters far more for long-term saving than for short-term loans.
Invest 1000 for one year at 10%. What does the balance become as the compounding frequency rises?
Notice what is happening: the amounts keep rising, yet they rise by less and less. They are converging on a ceiling rather than growing without limit.
Let the compounding frequency grow without bound — compounding every day, every second, continuously. The expression
does not run off to infinity; it settles on
, where
This is exactly where Euler's number comes from. It is not an arbitrary constant someone chose — it is the limit that continuous growth converges to, which is why appears throughout finance, biology and physics wherever something grows in proportion to its current size.
Invest 1000 at 8% for 10 years. Compare annual, monthly, daily and continuous compounding.
The difference between annual and continuous compounding is about 67 here. The difference between compounding at all and not compounding is far larger — the frequency matters much less than the principle.
The same formula describes all of them, because in each case the rate of change is proportional to the amount currently present. Decay is simply the case where is negative.