Reverse Induction for Proving Negative nth Derivatives of x*e^(x)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction Reverse
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on using reverse induction to prove that the nth derivative of the function x*e^(x) is (x+n)*e^(x) for all integer n, including negative values. The user establishes a base case with n=0 and demonstrates the inductive step for positive n. They explore the possibility of extending the proof to negative derivatives by showing that if the nth derivative holds, then the (n-1)th derivative also holds. The conclusion is that reverse induction can effectively be applied to prove the case for negative derivatives.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of derivatives and their notation
  • Familiarity with the function x*e^(x)
  • Knowledge of mathematical induction and reverse induction
  • Basic concepts of integrals and their relationship to derivatives
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of mathematical induction and reverse induction in depth
  • Learn about the properties of derivatives of exponential functions
  • Explore the relationship between derivatives and integrals in calculus
  • Practice proving derivative formulas using induction techniques
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus, particularly those interested in advanced derivative proofs and mathematical induction techniques.

Char. Limit
Gold Member
Messages
1,222
Reaction score
23

Homework Statement


Say I had a problem like this:

Prove that the nth derivative of x*e^(x) is (x+n)*e^(x) for all integer n.

Can I use reverse induction to prove for negative n? For example...

Say I proved it for my base case, n=0. In this case, the proof is trivial.

Then I prove that if the nth derivative is (x+n)e^(x), then the (n+1)th derivative is (x+n+1)e^(x). (I didn't provide the proof because there's a similar homework problem here, and the proof is easy anyway.

Can I then use reverse induction to prove that if the nth derivative is (x+n)e^(x), then the (n-1)th derivative is (x+n-1)e^(x), thus extending this case to negative derivatives (i.e., integrals)?

Am I even making sense?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm, I'm not sure if this is correct. You do have to use reverse induction though. But isn't it easier to show "if it holds for -n, then it holds for -n-1". Or is this what you meant?
 
micromass said:
Hmm, I'm not sure if this is correct. You do have to use reverse induction though. But isn't it easier to show "if it holds for -n, then it holds for -n-1". Or is this what you meant?

Well, that would probably work too. EDIT: Since my base case is n=0, I don't see much of a difference.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K