Logarithm Rules Proof: Calculus Approach

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter brandy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Log Proof Rules
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proofs for the differential and integral rules of logarithms, specifically focusing on the calculus-based approaches to these proofs. Participants explore various definitions of logarithms and their implications for deriving these rules.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests proofs for the differential and integral log rules.
  • Another participant provides the formulas for the derivative and integral of logarithms and suggests differentiating the integral result to verify it.
  • A third participant emphasizes that the proof method depends on the definition of the logarithm, mentioning the natural logarithm defined via an integral.
  • One participant interprets the original request as seeking the proof for the derivative of the natural logarithm, using implicit differentiation.
  • Another participant agrees with the implicit differentiation approach but notes that it assumes prior knowledge of the derivative of the exponential function.
  • There is a suggestion that using the integral definition of the natural logarithm is simpler than relying on an algebraic definition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the best approach to proving the logarithm rules, with some favoring calculus definitions and others preferring algebraic definitions. There is no consensus on a single method or definition to use.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on definitions of logarithms and the implications for proof methods. Some participants reference the fundamental theorem of calculus and the need for prior proofs, indicating potential gaps in assumptions.

brandy
Messages
156
Reaction score
0
proof for the differential log rule
proof for the integral log rule

please and thankyou
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you mean why
[tex]\frac{d}{dx} {}^a\log(x) = \frac{1}{x \operatorname{ln}(a)}[/tex]
and
[tex]\int {}^a\log(x) \, dx = \frac{1}{\operatorname{ln}(a)}\left( x \log(x) - x \right)[/tex]?

The second one is easiest: just differentiate the right hand side and check that you get the integrand (alog(x)) back.

For the first one, I assume that you have defined the log function as
[tex]a^{{}^a \log(x)} = x[/tex]
(i.e. it inverts exponentiation) and that you will buy (or have somehow proven) that
[tex]\frac{d}{dx} a^x = \operatorname{ln}(a) a^x.[/tex]

Now consider the derivative of
[tex]a^{{}^a\log(x)}[/tex]
and use the chain rule.
 
How you prove such things depends strongly on how you define log x!

It is common, in many calculus texts, to define the natural logarithm by
[tex]ln(x)= \int_1^x\frac{1}{t} dt[/itex]<br /> <br /> Now the derivative rule follows trivially from the fundamental theorem of calculus. Further, you can show all the properties of the logarithm directly from that definition, including the facts that it is invertible and that its inverse function can be written as a real number to the x power.<br /> <br /> Once you have natural logarithm, the same rules and properties follow for [itex]log_a x[/itex] by using <br /> [tex]log_a(x)= \frac{ln(x)}{ln(a)}[/tex]<br /> <br /> Since this has nothing to do with "Differential Equations", I am moving it to "Calculus and Analysis".[/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think he means the definition from algebra. I also think he means the proof that d(ln x)/dx=1/x.

Am I right? Anyway,

y=ln x[tex]\Rightarrow[/tex]x=e^y

Using implicit differentiation,

(e^y)(dy/dx)=1 so dy/dx=1/(e^y)
but e^y=x so
dy/dx=1/x.
 
That works, of course, assuming that you have already proved the derivative formula for [itex]e^x[/itex]. And that involves showing that
[tex]\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{a^h- 1}{h}[/tex]
exists. I think using the integral definition of ln(x) is much simpler. And I don't see any reason for using an "algebra definition" rather than a "calculus definition" to do a Calculus problem!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K