Prove: f(x) = alnxProving Derivatives and ln Homework Statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter JG89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivatives Ln
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a differentiable function \( f(x) \) satisfying the equation \( f(xy) = f(x) + f(y) \) can be expressed as \( f(x) = a \ln x \). The subject area includes properties of logarithmic functions and derivatives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the functional equation and attempt to derive the form of \( f(x) \) through various approaches, including the use of derivatives and limits. Questions arise regarding the application of the chain rule and the validity of using L'Hôpital's rule in this context.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing insights and attempting to clarify their reasoning. Some have suggested specific approaches to show that \( f'(x) = a/x \), while others are questioning the steps taken and the assumptions made. There is no explicit consensus, but several productive lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem may require a deeper understanding of the properties of logarithmic functions and derivatives, and there is mention of constraints related to the level of mathematical tools covered in their coursework.

JG89
Messages
724
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



If a differentiable function f(x) satisfies the equation f(xy) = f(x) + f(y), prove then that f(x) = alnx.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I have proved that if f satisfies f(x + y) = f(x)f(y) then f(x) = 0 or f(x) = e^(ax)

and I also know that if a function f satisfies f'(x) = af(x) for some constant a, then f(x) = ce^(ax) for some constant c and a.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Define f'(1)=a. Now write down f'(x) as a difference quotient and mess around with it. Maybe make a change of variables on the h. Can you show f'(x)=a/x?
 
Last edited:
[tex]f'(x) = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h} = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(x+h) + (-f(x))}{h}[/tex].

I think the negative sign in front of f(x) messes things up because I don't think I can write f(x+h) + (-f(x)) as f(x(x+h)).

EDIT: I just saw your edit, I will continue to work on it.
 
You should be able to show f(1/x)=-f(x) pretty easily.
 
0 = f(1) = f(x(1/x)) = f(x) + f(1/x) and so f(1/x) = -f(x).
So then I have [tex]f'(x) = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(x+h) + f(1/x)}{h} = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(1 + h/x)}{h}[/tex]

But I can't see where to go from here to show that f'(x) = a/x
 
Isn't this a candidate for L'Hopital's now or is that a step in the wrong direction?
 
I was thinking that, so using l'hospital I have f'(x) = f'(1+x/h), no? But to me this doesn't make sense because if I want to show that the derivative is a/x then this cannot be true.

Plus in my textbook we haven;t covered l'hospital yet so I assume I'm expected to solve the question without using it.
 
No using L'Hopital's you have

[tex]\lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{x} f'\left(1 + \frac{h}{x} \right) = \frac{1}{x}[/tex]
 
Isn't the derivative of f(1 + x/h) = f'(1 + x/h)? Plus where did the 1/x come from before the f'(1+ h/x)?
 
  • #10
Chain rule? And you keep writing x/h when you mean h/x, be careful.
 
  • #11
Sorry if I'm being difficult, but how did you use the chain rule there?..
 
  • #12
Okay, I think I have it.

Letting [tex]\phi(h) = h/x[/tex], we have [tex]d\dx (f(1+\phi)) = f'(1 + \phi)*\phi'(h) = f'(1 + \phi) * (1/x)[/tex].

So we have [tex]f'(x) = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} f'(1 + h\x)*(1/x) = a/x[/tex]
 
  • #13
Ugh, I messed up some of the latex in the previous post and whenever I try to edit it, it won't save the changes, so I will just retype what I wanted to type..

letting g(h) = h/x, we have d/dx(f(1+g)) = f'(1+g)*g' = f'(1 + h/x)*1/x.

Now, since f'(x) = lim as h approaches 0 of f'(1 + h/x)*1/x, we have f'(x) = f'(1)/x = a/x.

Dick, how did you see right away to define f'(1) = a?
 
  • #14
If anything I would let [tex]\phi(h) = 1 + \frac{h}{x}[/tex] but you have the right idea there.

Next, you wrote [tex]f'(1+h)[/tex], you probably meant [tex]f'\left(1 + \frac{h}{x} \right)[/tex]?
 
  • #15
JG89 said:
0 = f(1) = f(x(1/x)) = f(x) + f(1/x) and so f(1/x) = -f(x).
So then I have [tex]f'(x) = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(x+h) + f(1/x)}{h} = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(1 + h/x)}{h}[/tex]

But I can't see where to go from here to show that f'(x) = a/x

You probably also showed that f(1)=0. So your difference quotient is
(1/x)*((f(1+h/x)-f(1))/(h/x))). Since if h->0, so does h/x->0, the second factor is a difference quotient for f'(1). So it's (1/x)*f'(1)=a/x.
 
  • #16
NoMoreExams said:
If anything I would let [tex]\phi(h) = 1 + \frac{h}{x}[/tex] but you have the right idea there.

Next, you wrote [tex]f'(1+h)[/tex], you probably meant [tex]f'\left(1 + \frac{h}{x} \right)[/tex]?

Yup, that's what I meant. And of course, since f'(x) = a/x, integrating gives us f(x) = alnx.

Thanks guys
 
  • #17
Dick said:
You probably also showed that f(1)=0. So your difference quotient is
(1/x)*((f(1+h/x)-f(1))/(h/x))). Since if h->0, so does h/x->0, the second factor is a difference quotient for f'(1). So it's (1/x)*f'(1)=a/x.

How are you able to so easily spot these things?
 
  • #18
Practice, I guess. But it wasn't all THAT easy. I did have to think about it. I knew the answer was f(x)=a*ln(x), so f'(1)=a. Now you just have to figure out how to turn the difference quotient at a general point x into a difference quotient at x=1 times something using that f(xy)=f(x)+f(y). Forget the solution, get a blank piece of paper and try it. It's not super hard either.
 
  • #19
Do you know of any questions similar to the one that I posted? There aren't anymore in my textbook and I'd love to try another one.
 
  • #20
Not exactly. There aren't a lot of functions that have such a simple relation as f(xy)=f(x)+f(y) or f(x+y)=f(x)f(y). Try redoing the proof that the latter is c*exp(ax) where a=f'(0) for the latter case, if you can forget how it was proved before. It's even easier.
 
  • #21
I will try redoing it with another proof. Thanks :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K