Excerpt from a comment clarifying the actual confusion:
I always found it a odd way to define the model. Consider the SARIMA(1,0,0)(1,0,0)24... isn't this the same as the much simpler rendering $y_t=\beta_0+\beta_1 y_{t-1}+\beta_2 y_{t-24}+\beta_3 y_{t-25}$? Why define it in that weird way?
Now
$$ y_t = \beta_0 + \beta_1 y_{t-1} + \beta_2 y_{t-24} + \beta_3 y_{t-25} + \varepsilon_t $$
is an ARIMA(25,0,0) model (with some coefficients set to zero). Is it the same as SARIMA(1,0,0)(1,0,0)24? Actually, no. They are the same up to a restriction on the coefficients. In SARIMA(1,0,0)(1,0,0)24, the following must hold:
$$ \beta_1 = \phi_1, \ \beta_{2} = \Phi_{24}, \ \beta_{3} = - \phi_{1}\Phi_{24}. $$
Hence, for a given pair $(\beta_1,\beta_{2})$, the remaining coefficient $\beta_{3}$ is fixed: $\beta_{3} = - \beta_1\beta_{2}$. If this restriction does not hold, you have an ARIMA(25,0,0) rather than SARIMA(1,0,0)(1,0,0)24.
This is also a testable hypothesis (although I am not sure how useful such a test is from the subject-matter perspective); you may estimate an ARIMA(25,0,0) with zero restrictions on all lags but 1, 24 and 25, and test for the hypothesis $\text{H}_0: \beta_{3} = - \beta_1\beta_{2}$. If you cannot reject it, you would go for SARIMA(1,0,0)(1,0,0)24; if you reject it, ARIMA(25,0,0) would be your choice.
e<sub>t</sub>
is still there, correct? So, nothing happens with it. $\endgroup$