So I know this question is a bit obtuse because usually we define $e$ in terms of the $\lim_{n \to \infty} (1 + 1/n)^n$ definition, and then compute derivatives of $e^x$ from there appealing to the limit definition of $e$, and then appeal to Taylor series of $e^x$ to finally arrive at $e = \sum_n 1/n!$. However, how hard would it be to do the other way around, to compute the derivative of $e^x$? I.e., is it possible to show the derivative of $(\sum_n 1/n!)^x$ with respect to $x$ is equal to itself, somewhat "directly", without showing the summation formulation of $e$ is equivalent to the typical limit definition of $e$?
-
2Usually, you define $e^x$ as $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{x^n}{n!}$$ – Tryss Jun 25 '15 at 16:36
-
1@User If at all, it is pretty easy to show that using the definition/result (depend how do you arrive to this) that $$e^x=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{x^n}{n!}$$ and using what we know about absoltue convergence of power series and stuff. As you say I am not really sure something more or less acceptably easy can be done. – Timbuc Jun 25 '15 at 16:37
-
I'm not so sure this is the best "formal" approach, because for example how would you confirm that $(e^x)^y = e^{xy}$ and so forth? – user2566092 Jun 25 '15 at 16:37
-
@user2566092 start with positive integers (use cauchy products), extend to negative integers, extend to rationals, extend to the reals by limits. – Ben Grossmann Jun 25 '15 at 16:39
-
Basically what I'm saying is let's skip the $e = \lim_{n \to \infty} (1 + 1/n)^n$ definition of $e$ and the formal series definition of $e^x$. Just using the series definition of $e = \sum_n 1/n!$, can we verify the derivative of $e^x$ is itself? – user2566092 Jun 25 '15 at 16:39
-
3@user2566092 that defines a number $e$. How do you define the function $e^x$ for all real numbers $x$? – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jun 25 '15 at 16:43
-
1@MarianoSuárez-Alvarez The usual brutal way, using rationals and limits. – user2566092 Jun 25 '15 at 16:44
-
Wasn't exponentiation for real $x$ defined in terms of $e^x$ in the first place? OP what do you think ^x means unless $x\in \mathbb N$? – krvolok Jun 25 '15 at 17:08
-
@MarianoSuárez-Alvarez I skipped your comment and asked the same thing, oops :) – krvolok Jun 25 '15 at 17:13
-
1@user2566092: Indeed the way you suggest is "brutal". To see how "brutal" it is I refer you to my post http://paramanands.blogspot.com/2014/05/theories-of-exponential-and-logarithmic-functions-part-3.html You may also read the far more simpler means (i.e. much less brutal) of defining $e^{x}$ in http://paramanands.blogspot.com/2014/05/theories-of-exponential-and-logarithmic-functions-part-1.html and http://paramanands.blogspot.com/2014/05/theories-of-exponential-and-logarithmic-functions-part-2_10.html – Paramanand Singh Jun 27 '15 at 07:05
4 Answers
Check the following: $$e^x=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!}$$
Now you can take the derivative term by term (you actually need to justify why one can do so), and you obtain: $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{nx^{n-1}}{n!}=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{x^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{x^{k}}{k!}=e^x$$
- 6,883
-
2So you're saying that just by assuming $e = \sum_n 1/n!$ we can get the power series for $e^x$ somehow? Can you at least give a brief outline as to how? – user2566092 Jun 25 '15 at 16:43
-
Actually,$,\displaystyle\sum\limits_{\ge0}\dfrac{x^n}{n!},$ is the definition of $,\exp x$. Then setting $\mathrm e=\exp 1$, you can show $, \exp x=\mathrm e^x$, first for $x\in \mathbf N$, then for $,x\in \mathbf Z$ and finally for $,x\in \mathbf Q$. Last step: for $,x\in\mathbf C\smallsetminus \mathbf Q$, $\mathrm e^x$ (which is meaningless up to that point) is defined as being $,\exp x$. – Bernard Jun 25 '15 at 17:27
-
1@Bernard Maybe I'm missing some fundamental point then but I thought that by defining rational powers of non-negative rational numbers (appealing to completeness of the reals, of course), we could define real powers of non-negative real numbers. So then that leads to $e^x$ for real $x$, where, what I'm trying to assume, is simply that $e = \sum_n 1/n!$. And then showing that the derivative of $f(x) = e^x$ is $e^x$ using that definition of $e$ and the brute-force way of defining real powers of (non-negative) real numbers. – user2566092 Jun 25 '15 at 18:01
-
You can, but the simpler way is via power series. I tried the other way with 1st year students, and it requires quite some virtuosity with sequence of functions, especially when it comes to derivability. I think the exercise is not worth the time spent on it. Moreover, heuristically, one doesn't see why this particular number is introduced. – Bernard Jun 25 '15 at 18:39
-
1@Bernard: The approach mentioned by OP is difficult but not too difficult, Also I don't think we need sequence of functions or any ideas like uniform convergence etc.. Please see my answer here and the posts i have linked in my answer. – Paramanand Singh Jun 27 '15 at 08:29
Note that if we define $$ f(x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{x^k}{k!}\tag{1} $$ we get $$ \begin{align} f(x)f(y) &=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{x^k}{k!}\sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac{y^j}{j!}\\ &=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\sum_{j=0}^k\frac{x^{k-j}}{(k-j)!}\frac{y^j}{j!}\\ &=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\sum_{j=0}^k\frac1{k!}\binom{k}{j}x^{k-j}y^j\\ &=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{(x+y)^k}{k!}\\[6pt] &=f(x+y)\tag{2} \end{align} $$ Induction shows that for $p,q\in\mathbb{Z}$, $f(p/q)^q=f(p)=f(1)^p$, therefore, $f(p/q)=f(1)^{p/q}$.
Thus, for all $x\in\mathbb{Q}$, $$ f(x)=f(1)^x\tag{3} $$ Since $f$ is continuous, $(3)$ holds for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$.
Since we've set $f(1)=e$, we get that $$ e^x=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{x^k}{k!}\tag{4} $$ Thus, $$ \begin{align} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}e^x &=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\frac{x^k}{k!}\\ &=\sum_{k=0}^\infty k\frac{x^{k-1}}{k!}\\ &=\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{x^{k-1}}{(k-1)!}\\ &=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{x^k}{k!}\\[6pt] &=e^x\tag{5} \end{align} $$
- 353,833
-
1Thanks, this is the most complete answer I've seen so far. I still wish we could just define $f(x) = (\sum_n 1/n!)^x$ and then show it's given by the power series for integers and then rationals and then the reals. And then after we've proved the power series representation we take derivatives to get identities etc. However your manipulation of the power series to establish multiplication rules and taking root rules basically could be used to do that, or at least I believe so. So I'll accept this answer, and +1 for this and others who gave sparse versions of the same idea. – user2566092 Jun 26 '15 at 17:18
-
@user2566092: Your "wish" is difficult to fulfill and I have given a gist of how to fulfill it in my answer. robjohn's approach is smallest possible answer to your question. The only thing which is bit difficult to digest here (for a beginner) is the exponential series itself coming out of the blue. My answer avoids the exponential series completely, but then you need to work more. BTW +1 for robjohn. – Paramanand Singh Jun 27 '15 at 08:52
For any base, $$\frac{b^{x+h}-b^x}{h}=b^x\frac{b^h-1}{h},$$ so that it suffices to compute the derivative at $x=0$.
If we define $L_b:=\left(b^x\right)'\Big|_{x=0}=\lim_{h\to0}\dfrac{b^h-1}{h}$, then
$$\left(b^x\right)'=L_bb^x.$$
The power series that satisfies this differential equation with the initial condition $b^0=1$ is found by identification of the coefficients, which yields the recurrence $nc_n=L_bc_{n-1}$ and
$$b^x=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{L^n_b x^n}{n!}.$$ As the power series is strictly increasing, the equation $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{L^n_b x^n}{n!}=b$$ has at most one solution in $x$.
With $$b=e=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac1{n!},$$ this solution must be $$L_ex=1.$$
Then $$e^{1/L_e}=e$$ implies $$L_e=1$$ and $$\left(e^x\right)'=e^x.$$
-
1How do you know that there is a power series? Maybe $x \mapsto b^x$ isn't analytic. – Najib Idrissi Jun 26 '15 at 09:07
-
@NajibIdrissi: by the differential equation, we see that the function is infinitely differentiable everywhere. Is that enough ? We can also trade the power series for the Taylor development. – Jun 26 '15 at 09:11
-
@YvesDaoust How do you know that $x\mapsto b^x$ is differentiable at $0$? – Daniel Fischer Jun 26 '15 at 09:12
-
1There are infinitely differentiable functions that are not analytic, eg. $x \mapsto e^{-1/x^2}$ (all the derivatives at $0$ vanish, so if the function were analytic it would vanish too). – Najib Idrissi Jun 26 '15 at 09:12
-
@DanielFischer: what definition of the power function could be used in this context ? – Jun 26 '15 at 09:15
-
@YvesDaoust I guess the one the OP outlined here. You can show everything starting from that of course, but as far as I can see, that's a bit of work. The way Bernard sketched in the comments on the other answer is probably the fastest. – Daniel Fischer Jun 26 '15 at 09:19
-
1@DanielFischer: yep, but the OP doesn't want to take the power series for granted. Your link points to this page, was it intended ? – Jun 26 '15 at 09:22
-
The link points to a specific comment (on the other answer). The gist is that by completeness of $\mathbb{R}$ we have $n^{\text{th}}$ roots of positive real numbers for $n\in\mathbb{N}\setminus{0}$, that gives powers of positive bases with rational exponents, and then extend to irrational exponents by continuity. One does not need to take power series for granted, one starts with $\exp(x) := \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!}$. It's clear that $\exp' = \exp$. One shows that $\exp(x+y) = \exp(x)\exp(y)$. That gives $\exp(x) = (\exp(1))^x$ for rational $x$, and by continuity, for all $x$. – Daniel Fischer Jun 26 '15 at 09:30
-
@DanielFischer: by using the $n^{th}$ root, defined as the solution of $y^n=x$ for integer $n$, and using $h=1/n$, one can probably show existence of the derivative. – Jun 26 '15 at 09:30
-
@YvesDaoust Indeed, one can. It's a bit of work, however. (Convexity helps there.) – Daniel Fischer Jun 26 '15 at 09:31
I have given some links to my blog posts in the comments to the question and I would like to give some remarks on the way you want to define $e^{x}$ and show that derivative of $e^{x}$ is $e^{x}$ itself.
First note that the most frequent definition of $e$ is given by $$e = \lim_{n \to \infty}\left(1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^{n}\tag{1}$$ Using this definition it is possible to prove that $$e = 1 + \frac{1}{1!} + \frac{1}{2!} + \cdots\tag{2}$$ so that both these definitions are equivalent. For a simple proof see this answer. Thus you see that we can easily go from $(1)$ to $(2)$ without defining $e^{x}$ and finding its Taylor series (like you mention in your question). In fact it is possible to prove more, namely $$\lim_{n \to \infty}\left(1 + \frac{x}{n}\right)^{n} = 1 + x + \frac{x^{2}}{2!} + \cdots\tag{3}$$ without using any properties of $e$ or $\log$ function. See this post for the same.
Now coming to your brutal definition of $e^{x}$ as limit of $e^{x_{n}}$ where $x_{n}$ is a sequence of rationals tending to $x$ (this is what we mean by "extending definition of a function $f(x)$ from rational values of $x$ to irrational values of $x$ by continuity"). This is possible if we establish the existence of such a limit and also the fact that it is independent of specific sequence $x_{n}$ so that if another sequence $y_{n} \to x$ then both $e^{x_{n}}$ and $e^{y_{n}}$ tend to same limit.
When we proceed in this manner we can easily see that the properties of exponentiation hold i.e. $e^{x + y} = e^{x}e^{y}$ for all $x, y$. The derivative of $e^{x}$ is then easily seen to be $$\lim_{h \to 0}\frac{e^{x + h} - e^{x}}{h} = e^{x}\lim_{h \to 0}\frac{e^{h} - 1}{h}$$ and thus our goal is achieved if we show that $$\lim_{h \to 0}\frac{e^{h} - 1}{h} = 1\tag{4}$$ This is another difficult story. In my blog I have used another technique to establish $(4)$. Using some tricky but not so difficult inequalities I have shown that the limit $$\lim_{h \to 0}\frac{a^{h} - 1}{h}$$ exists for all $a > 0$ (where $a^{h}$ has been defined brutally). And hence this limit can be used to define a function of $a$ for $a > 0$. Lets call it $L(a)$ so that $$L(a) = \lim_{h \to 0}\frac{a^{h} - 1}{h}\tag{5}$$ for all $a > 0$. Then we can easily establish that $$L(ab) = L(a) + L(b), L(1/a) = -L(a), L(1) = 0\tag{6}$$ and that $L(a)$ is a strictly increasing continuous and differentiable function of $a$ and the range of this function is whole of $\mathbb{R}$ and its derivative is $L'(a) = 1/a$ (so that $L(a)$ is what we call $\log a$). Hence there is a unique number $\xi > 0$ such that $L(\xi) = 1$. Then I show that this unique $\xi$ is same as the number $e$ defined by limit $(1)$ (this requires us to use the fact that $L'(1) = 1$). This way I establish $(4)$. Note that proof of $(4)$ in this manner is independent of the proof of equation $(3)$ which deals with power series for $e^{x}$. More details available in this post.
- 92,128
-
As in this answer, if we assume $e^x=\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac xn\right)^n$, then, for $|x|\le1$, the Binomial Theorem says $$\begin{align} \left|\left(1+\frac xn\right)^n-1-x\right| &=\left|\sum_{k=2}^n\binom{n}{k}\left(\frac xn\right)^k\right|\ &\le|x|^2\sum_{k=2}^\infty\frac1{k!}\[6pt] &=|x|^2(e-2) \end{align}$$ Dividing by $x$ and taking the limit as $n\to\infty$, this says that for $|x|\le1$, $$\left|\frac{e^x-1}x-1\right| \le|x|(e-2)$$ Therefore, $$\lim_{x\to0}\frac{e^x-1}x=1$$ – robjohn Jun 27 '15 at 09:22
-
1@robjohn: I am aware of this proof. However in my answer, I have not assumed that $e^{x} = \lim (1 + x/n)^{n}$. My definition of $e^{x}$ in this answer is based on definition of $e$ as given by equation $(1)$ or $(2)$ and then $e^{x}$ is limit of $e^{x_{n}}$ where $x_{n}$ is any sequence of rationals tending to $x$. If we define $e^{x}$ directly as limit of $(1 + x/n)^{n}$ then the proof of $(e^{x} - 1)/x \to 1$ is easy as you have shown in your comment. My equation $(3)$ is an equality between a limit and an infinite series. – Paramanand Singh Jun 27 '15 at 09:26
-
Of course, it is not hard to show that $e^x =\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac1n\right)^{nx} =\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac xn\right)^n$ – robjohn Jun 27 '15 at 09:57