Question about calculus, on derivatives

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Some_dude91
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus Derivatives
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the derivative of the exponential function, specifically \( e^x \). Participants express confusion regarding the steps involved in this derivation, exploring various mathematical approaches and interpretations. The conversation includes technical reasoning, challenges to proposed methods, and references to limits and L'Hopital's Rule.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation of the derivative of \( e^x \) but expresses confusion about the steps, particularly regarding the integration of the exponential function.
  • Another participant notes that the original post changed frequently, making it difficult to provide assistance.
  • A third participant corrects the initial steps, emphasizing the correct limit definition of the derivative and suggesting that L'Hopital's Rule may be applicable.
  • Some participants argue that L'Hopital's Rule is unnecessary and that the derivative should be evaluated at \( x = 0 \) to establish the behavior of \( e^x \).
  • There is a discussion about the existence of the limit \( \lim_{\Delta x\rightarrow 0}{\frac{e^{\Delta x} - 1}{\Delta x}} \) and whether it can be rigorously shown without assuming properties of \( e^x \).
  • One participant suggests an alternative approach to derive the derivative of \( a^x \) for any positive \( a \) and discusses the definition of \( e \) in relation to this limit.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to derive the derivative of \( e^x \). There are competing views on the necessity of L'Hopital's Rule and the assumptions required for the derivation.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express concerns about missing brackets and questionable manipulations in the original derivation. There is also mention of the need for clarity on the definition of \( e^x \) being used in the discussion.

Some_dude91
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I am posting this question, in order to make something clear, since i am confused by derivation of the exponential function. I'll post the formula i used, correct me if you find something wrong thank you:
[itex] {\frac{d}{Dx}}\ e^x =>[/itex]

[itex] {\frac{e^{x + Dx} - e^x}{Dx}}\ =>[/itex]

Here i factored out [itex]e^x[/itex]

[itex] e^x\ {\frac{e^{Dx} - 1}{Dx}}\ =>[/itex]

I integrated the exponential

[itex]e^{Dx}\ =\ cosh(Dx)\ +\ sinh(Dx)\[/itex]

Now based on theory
[itex]e^{Dx}[/itex]
already approaches a value which is a tiny little above 1 so if we subtract one it will be one tiny little value above 0 and if we divide by [itex]Dx[/itex]
we are likely to get 1 as the values approach each other as they shrink to lower values.
But as i try to factor for [itex]sinh(x)[/itex] i take that since
[itex] coth(x)\ =\ {\frac{\cosh(x)}{sinh(x)}}\[/itex]
i take that
[itex]cosh(Dx)\ =\ coth(Dx)\ *\ sinh(Dx)[/itex]

[itex] e^x\ {\frac{coth(Dx)sinh(Dx) + sinh(Dx) - 1}{Dx}}\ =>[/itex]

[itex] e^x\ {\frac{sinh(Dx)\ (coth(Dx) + 1)}{Dx}}\ -\ {\frac{1}{Dx}}\[/itex]

As sinh(Dx) approaches 0 so does Dx and they tend to be 1 in division
[itex] e^x\ *\ (coth(Dx)\ +\ 1)\ -\ {\frac{1}{Dx}}\[/itex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I was going to try to help, but every time I refreshed, your post had changed. I'm not going to try to hit a moving target.
 
Some_dude91 said:
I am posting this question, in order to make something clear, since i am confused by derivation of the exponential function. I'll post the formula i used, correct me if you find something wrong thank you:
[itex] {\frac{d}{Dx}}\ e^x =>[/itex]

[itex] {\frac{e^{x + Dx} - e^x}{Dx}}\ =>[/itex]

Here i factored out [itex]e^x[/itex]

[itex] e^x\ {\frac{e^{Dx} - 1}{Dx}}\ =>[/itex]

I integrated the exponential

[itex]e^{Dx}\ =\ cosh(Dx)\ +\ sinh(Dx)\[/itex]

Now based on theory
[itex]e^{Dx}[/itex]
already approaches a value which is a tiny little above 1 so if we subtract one it will be one tiny little value above 0 and if we divide by [itex]Dx[/itex]
we are likely to get 1 as the values approach each other as they shrink to lower values.
But as i try to factor for [itex]sinh(x)[/itex] i take that since
[itex] coth(x)\ =\ {\frac{\cosh(x)}{sinh(x)}}\[/itex]
i take that
[itex]cosh(Dx)\ =\ coth(Dx)\ *\ sinh(Dx)[/itex]

[itex] e^x\ {\frac{coth(Dx)sinh(Dx) + sinh(Dx) - 1}{Dx}}\ =>[/itex]

[itex] e^x\ {\frac{sinh(Dx)\ (coth(Dx) + 1)}{Dx}}\ -\ {\frac{1}{Dx}}\[/itex]

As sinh(Dx) approaches 0 so does Dx and they tend to be 1 in division
[itex] e^x\ *\ (coth(Dx)\ +\ 1)\ -\ {\frac{1}{Dx}}\[/itex]

This is too sloppy, there are brackets missing, ##D## should be ##Δ##, there are some questionable manipulations and I don't know why you are going in this direction.
 
Some_dude91 said:
I am posting this question, in order to make something clear, since i am confused by derivation of the exponential function. I'll post the formula i used, correct me if you find something wrong thank you:

This is how to write the derivative correctly:

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

This next step is incorrect:

[tex]{\frac{e^{x + Dx} - e^x}{Dx}}\ =>[/tex]

The derivative is defined as

[tex] {\frac{d}{dx}}\ e^x =<br /> \lim_{Δx\rightarrow 0}{\frac{e^{x + Δx} - e^x}{Δx}}[/tex]

You can apply the Law of Exponents here to factor out [itex]e^{x}[/itex], leaving

[tex] {\frac{d}{dx}}\ e^x = e^x<br /> \lim_{Δx\rightarrow 0}{\frac{e^{Δx} - 1}{Δx}}[/tex]

When you evaluate this limit, it becomes an indeterminate form, [itex]{\frac{0}{0}}[/itex], which can be treated with L'Hopital's Rule.

I have no idea how you got to the next step. In general, finding derivatives does not involve the use of integration:

I integrated the exponential

[itex]e^{Δx}\ =\ cosh(Δx)\ +\ sinh(Δx)\[/itex]

Now based on theory
[itex]e^{Dx}[/itex]
already approaches a value which is a tiny little above 1 so if we subtract one it will be one tiny little value above 0 and if we divide by [itex]Dx[/itex]
we are likely to get 1 as the values approach each other as they shrink to lower values.
But as i try to factor for [itex]sinh(x)[/itex] i take that since
[itex] coth(x)\ =\ {\frac{\cosh(x)}{sinh(x)}}\[/itex]
i take that
[itex]cosh(Dx)\ =\ coth(Dx)\ *\ sinh(Dx)[/itex]

[itex] e^x\ {\frac{coth(Dx)sinh(Dx) + sinh(Dx) - 1}{Dx}}\ =>[/itex]

[itex] e^x\ {\frac{sinh(Dx)\ (coth(Dx) + 1)}{Dx}}\ -\ {\frac{1}{Dx}}\[/itex]

As sinh(Dx) approaches 0 so does Dx and they tend to be 1 in division
[itex] e^x\ *\ (coth(Dx)\ +\ 1)\ -\ {\frac{1}{Dx}}\[/itex]
 
^L'Hopital's Rule is not needed
We need to know the derivative of e^x when x is 0.
That is a whole other proof.
Then

$$\exp^\prime(0)=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{\exp(0+h)-\exp(0)}{h}\\
\exp^\prime(0)\exp(x)=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{\exp(0+h)-\exp(0)}{h}\exp(x)\\
\exp^\prime(0)\exp(x)=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{\exp(x+h)-\exp(x)}{h}\\
\exp^\prime(0)\exp(x)=\exp^\prime(x)
$$
 
I see what you are trying to do, but I think you are boot-strapping.

You haven't rigorously shown that the following limit exists:

[tex]\lim_{Δx\rightarrow 0}{\frac{e^{Δx} - 1}{Δx}}[/tex]

In studying derivatives, one doesn't normally start off with trying to show that e^x is its own derivative. I still think L'Hopital's Rule is one call you can make here to complete the proof.
 
^That is my point I assume exp'(0), you assume exp'(x).
e^x is its own derivative, what else would you show?
L'Hopital's rule is a strong result that the OP may or may not know, using it also requires knowing exp'(x).
In any case we must know exp'(0).

To show exp'(0) we need to know what definition of exp(x) the OP is using.
 
One can show, as SteamKing did, but using an arbitrary positive number, a, rather than e, that
[tex]\frac{da^x}{dx}= \left(\lim_{\Delta x\to 0} \frac{a^{\Delta x}- 1}{\Delta x}\right)a^x[/tex]
and that the limit exists, for any positive a, can be shown. That is, that the derivative of [itex]a^x[/itex] is a constant (depending on a) times [itex]a^x[/itex]. One can show that the limit is less than 1 for, say a= 2, larger than 1 for a= 3, and depends continuously on a. That means that there exist a value of a, between 2 and 3, such that the limit is 1 and we define "e" to be that value.

But many modern Calculus texts do the derivatives in the opposite way- define the natural logarithm function as [itex]\ln(x)= \int_0^1 \frac{dt}{t}[/itex], show that the inverse function to this new function is some number to the x power and then define "e" to be that number.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K