A problem with a power rule proof

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the derivative of the power function y=x^n, specifically addressing its validity for negative values of x. It is established that the proof holds for positive x, as the natural logarithm ln(x) is undefined for negative numbers. To extend the proof to negative x, participants suggest using properties of even and odd powers, while also noting that x=0 requires separate consideration. The proof is further validated through mathematical induction for positive integers and can be extended to rational or irrational numbers using logarithmic principles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of derivatives and differentiation rules, including product and quotient rules.
  • Familiarity with logarithmic functions, specifically natural logarithms (ln).
  • Knowledge of mathematical induction as a proof technique.
  • Basic concepts of even and odd functions in algebra.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of logarithmic functions and their derivatives.
  • Learn about mathematical induction and its applications in calculus proofs.
  • Explore the implications of even and odd functions in polynomial differentiation.
  • Investigate the extension of power functions to rational and irrational exponents.
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematics educators, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of differentiation for power functions and logarithmic proofs.

madah12
Messages
326
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


y=xn
<=>
ln(y)=nln(x)
<=>d/dx ln(y) = d/dx n ln(x) <=> y'/y=n/x
<=> y'=y*n/x=x^n*x/x=nx^(n-1)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


but doesn't this proof only hold for positive x? because ln a negative number is undefined or am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, it does. What you could do is note that for even n, [itex](-x)^n= x^n[/itex] and for odd n, [itex](-x)^n= -x^n[/itex] to extend from positive to negative numbers. Of course, you would still have to do x= 0 separately but sinced [itex]0^n= 0[/itex], that is easy. That only proves it for the power a positive integer but x any real number.

But, personally, I would consider that proof "overkill". Lograrithms are much more advanced than polynomials so I would expect to know the derivative of [itex]x^n[/itex] long before the derivative of logarithm.

Prove [itex](x^n)'= n x^{n-1}[/itex] for positive integer n by induction on n:
If n= 1, [itex]x^n= x[/itex] and its derivative is [itex]1= 1(x^0)[/itex].

Now, suppose [itex](x^k)'= k x^{k-1}[/itex] for some k. Then [itex]x^{k+1}= (x^k)(x)[/itex] so using the product rule,
[tex](x^{k+1})'= (x^k)'(x)+ (x^k)(x')= (kx^{k-1})x+ (x^k)(1)= kx^k+ x^k= (k+1)x^k[/tex].

You could then use the quotient rule to extend [itex](x^n)'= n x^{n-1}[/itex] to negative n.

But [itex]x^r[/itex] where r is an arbitrary rational or irrational number is only defined for x positive anyway so you can use the "logarithm" proof for those.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K