How to prove the derivatives of powers?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Owen-
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivatives
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the methods for proving the derivatives of power functions, specifically the derivative of \(x^n\) for various values of \(n\). Participants explore different approaches, including binomial expansion, induction, and logarithmic differentiation, while addressing the completeness of proofs presented in a lecture.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the full binomial expansion wasn't used in the proof, suggesting it could lead to the desired result by canceling terms.
  • Another participant proposes that an explicit error estimate is necessary to show that the remainder term in the proof approaches zero quickly enough.
  • A method using induction is presented, where the formula for the derivative of \(x^k\) is assumed true for \(k\) and then shown to hold for \(k+1\).
  • There is a suggestion that proving the rest term goes to zero would suffice for a complete proof.
  • A participant provides a limit-based proof involving factorization of \(x^n - a^n\) to demonstrate the derivative.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the completeness of the proof for all numbers, suggesting that logarithmic differentiation is a more direct method for proving the derivative of \(x^a\) for any real number \(a\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the completeness and methods of proving the derivative of power functions. There is no consensus on a single approach, as multiple methods are discussed and debated.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that certain details in proofs may have been overlooked, and assumptions about prior knowledge (such as the chain rule and properties of logarithms) are implicit in the discussions.

Who May Find This Useful

Students and educators interested in calculus, particularly in understanding the derivation of power function derivatives and the various methods of proof.

Owen-
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Ok, I just had a lecture recently the attached picture is what it was about. I understand it all, however at the end it says we havnt proven it yet - just wondering how DO you prove it then?

Thanks,
Owen
 

Attachments

  • deriv.png
    deriv.png
    16.1 KB · Views: 550
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm instead of just taking the linear part of the binomial expansion, why wasn't the full thing written down? Surely If the full formula for binomial was written out it would prove what we wanted?

the (x^n) parts would cancel then the only term without h in it after you divide across by h you would be left with what you wanted...
 
Well.
You would need to make an explicit error estimate to show that the rest term goes to zero sufficiently fast, but that is quite easy.

Another way of doing this is by assuming the truth of the product rule, and prove the general formula by induction:

Assume
[tex]f_{k}(x)=x^{k}, f_{k}^{'}(x)=k*x^{k-1}[/tex]
Note that this formula is true for k=1.

For arbitrary "k", we wish to prove that the formula holds for "k+1" as well:
[tex]f_{k+1}(x)=x^{k+1}=x*f_{k}(x)\to{f}_{k+1}^{'}(x)=1*x^{k}+x*k*x^{k-1}=(k+1)*x^{k}[/tex]

Therefore, we have proved that the formula holds for all powers k.
 
So the only thing my lecturer needed to do there was to

show that the rest term goes to zero sufficiently fast
? And it would have been proven?
 
Yes, in an epsilon-deltawise manner.
Rather tedious and longwinded; that's why he didn't bother to do it.
 
Ah - ok, thanks! Any chance you could find a link to this proof?

Frankly i don't even know what to look for :S

Thanks again,
Owen.
 
Try this proof:
[tex] f'(a)=\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\frac{x^{n}-a^{n}}{x-a}[/tex]
But [tex]x^{n}-a^{n}[/tex] has a factor of x-a, then we can factorise.
[tex] x^{n}-a^{n}=(x-a)(x^{n-1}+ax^{n-2}+\cdots +xa^{n-2}+a^{n-1})[/tex]
Then from here the limit is easy to find and the result follows.
 
I don't believe that is the point they are making. They have, though some details have been jumped over, proved that the derivative of [itex]x^n[/itex] is [itex]n x^{n-1}[/itex] for n any positive integer. When they say "this is true in general", I think that they mean that it is true for n any number, not just a positive integer.

The most direct way to prove that the derivative of [itex]x^a[/itex] is [itex]ax^{a- 1}[/itex] for a any number is to use logarithms.

If [itex]y= x^a[/itex] then [itex]y= e^{ln(x^a)}= e^{a ln(x)}[/itex]. Assuming that you already know that the derivative of [itex]e^x[/itex] is [itex]e^x[/itex], the derivative of [itex]ln(x)[/itex] is [itex]1/x[/itex], and the chain rule (which is why they "haven't proved it yet"), then we can say
[tex]\frac{dy}{dx}= \left(e^{aln(x)}\right)\left(\frac{a}{x}\right)[/tex]

And, now, since [itex]e^{a ln(x)}= e^{ln(x^a)}= x^a[/itex], that says that
[tex]\frac{dy}{dx}= x^a\frac{a}{x}= ax^{a-1}[/tex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K