Proving the Derivative of x^n: A Recursive Approach

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Werg22
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the derivative of the function x^n, specifically demonstrating that dy/dx of x^n equals nx^(n-1) without employing the binomial theorem. Participants explore various methods including induction, integration, and the use of limits.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests rewriting x^n in terms of e and ln and applying the chain rule, while acknowledging that differentiating an integral expression leads to circular logic.
  • Another proposes using induction and the product rule to establish the derivative, outlining a step-by-step approach that includes a base case and an inductive step.
  • Several participants discuss integrating x^n and using limits, with one emphasizing the importance of not simply "crossing out" terms in the limit process.
  • There is a contention regarding the characterization of a series involved in the proof, with differing views on whether it constitutes a geometric series or a simple sum.
  • One participant presents a recursive approach using the product rule, leading to a formula that can be derived from previous derivatives.
  • Another participant points out that the last approach mentioned does not utilize the chain rule but rather the product rule, highlighting a potential misunderstanding in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the methods to prove the derivative, with no consensus reached on a single approach. Disagreements arise particularly around the characterization of certain mathematical expressions and the appropriate rules to apply.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in their explanations, such as the use of informal language instead of LaTeX for clarity. There are also unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the definitions used in the proofs.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and educators in mathematics, particularly those interested in calculus and the derivation of fundamental rules regarding derivatives.

Werg22
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
1
It is asked from me to proove that dy/dx x^ n = nx^n-1 without using the binominal theorem... any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are a couple ways to do this. First, right x^n in terms of e and ln, the exponential and natural log function respectively. Then simply apply the chain rule. You can also arrive at the formula if you differentiate both sides of the expression: int(x^(n-1))=x^n/n, however the logic is somewhat circular.
 
How about using induction and the product rule?

(Since this has nothing to do with "differential equations", I am moving it.)
 
Integrating it would be a good approach.

Use the idea that (x^n-a^n) = (x-a)(x^n-1 + x^n-2*a ... + a^n-1)

Use the basic definition of a limit, and you get the left side as I showed above, then re-write it as the one on the right side, than you can cross (x-a) out if you use the appropriate definition (x->a). Then the right side is simply a geometric series, so sum that up and you get na^(n-1).

And you are done.

You have a proof for the definition (h->0), which uses the Binomial Theorem, and (x->a) like above.
 
Theorem: [itex]\frac{d x^n}{dx}= nx^{n-1}[/itex] for every positive integer n.

When n= 1, this says that [itex]\frac{d x}{dx}= 1x^0= 1[/itex] which is true.

Assume that, for some k, [itex]\frac{dx^k}{dx}= kx^{k-1}[/itex]

[itex]x^{k+1}= x(x^k)[/itex] so, by the product rule,
[tex]\frac{dx^{k+1}}{dx}= \frac{dx}{dx}x^k+ x\frac{dx^k}{dx}[/itex]<br /> Then <br /> [tex]\frac{dx^{k+1}}{dx}= x^k+ x(kx^k)= (k+1)x^k[/tex]<br /> <br /> By induction, then, [itex]\frac{dx^n}{dx}= nx^{n-1}[/itex] for every positive integer n.<br /> <br /> You can use the quotient rule to show it is true for all negative integers as well, the chain rule to show it is true for n any rational number, and, finally, logarithmic differentiation to show it is true for n any real number.[/tex]
 
JasonRox said:
Integrating it would be a good approach.
Use the idea that (x^n-a^n) = (x-a)(x^n-1 + x^n-2*a ... + a^n-1)
Use the basic definition of a limit, and you get the left side as I showed above, then re-write it as the one on the right side, than you can cross (x-a) out if you use the appropriate definition (x->a).

just divide by x-a and the LHS in the limit is the derivative, do not just "cross it out"


Then the right side is simply a geometric series, so sum that up and you get na^(n-1).

it is not a geometric series (except in the trivial sense), it is simply a sum x^{n-1}+x^{n-1}+..+x^{n-1} with n terms in it that are all the same.
 
matt grime said:
just divide by x-a and the LHS in the limit is the derivative, do not just "cross it out"
it is not a geometric series (except in the trivial sense), it is simply a sum x^{n-1}+x^{n-1}+..+x^{n-1} with n terms in it that are all the same.

I guess my explanation is bad. I was too lazy to use LaTeX.

This was another proof given in a very popular text by Stewart.
 
How about this? We know that [itex]x^n = x x^{n-1}[/itex] and using the chain rule it follows that

[tex]D_n = x^{n-1} + x D_{n-1}[/tex]

where [itex]D_n[/itex] stands for

[tex]\frac {d}{dx} x^n[/tex]

Now just follow the recursion on [itex]D_{n-1}[/itex] all the way down to [itex]D_0 = 0[/itex] and you obtain your result with n identical terms of [itex]x^{n-1}[/itex]. QED
 
Tide said:
How about this? We know that [itex]x^n = x x^{n-1}[/itex] and using the chain rule it follows that
[tex]D_n = x^{n-1} + x D_{n-1}[/tex]
where [itex]D_n[/itex] stands for
[tex]\frac {d}{dx} x^n[/tex]
Now just follow the recursion on [itex]D_{n-1}[/itex] all the way down to [itex]D_0 = 0[/itex] and you obtain your result with n identical terms of [itex]x^{n-1}[/itex]. QED

That doesn't use the "chain rule", it uses the "product rule"- which I did earlier in this thread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K