4

Can anyone give a proof of the derivative of this type of function? Specifically showing that

$\dfrac{d(x^w)}{dx} = wx^{w-1}$ for a real $w$?

I tried to use the Taylor series expansion for $(x+dx)^w$ and got the correct result. However, the proof of the Taylor series requires knowledge of the derivative of these functions. So this is essentially circular reasoning. I know that the same series is also given by the binomial expansion, but that's not entirely satisfactory either, because where's the proof that the binomial expansion works for all reals (isn't it only apparent for integers)? So far all of the arguments I've come across involve circular reasoning.

I was thinking of showing that the binomial expansion is true for all reals using some form of proof by induction e.g. something like this. http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~benchow/BinomialTheorem.pdf I'm really not sure.

jg mr chapb
  • 1,502
  • 1
  • 13
  • 44
  • http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1595531/can-0-0-be-allowed-if-it-can-be-defined –  Jul 12 '16 at 01:36
  • Perhaps you want a proof of derivative of $x^{n}$ without the use of binomial theorem for all real $n$. See http://math.stackexchange.com/a/1811218/72031 which does this with simple algebra. – Paramanand Singh Jul 12 '16 at 05:49
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jul 14 '16 at 09:48
  • 1
    Again the definition $x^n=\exp(n \ln(x))$ helps – Maximilian Janisch Jul 24 '20 at 11:39
  • To prove it for all real $n$ (modulo issues with existence of $x^n$), the primary means of doing this involve exponentials. Rational $n$ can be achieved without jumping to exponentials, but depending on your mode of attack, that might be putting the cart before the horse in a sense. – Cameron Williams Jul 24 '20 at 11:39
  • @ Maximilian Janisch and @ Cameron Williams Ok, how would I go about doing that? I've only ever learnt differentiation by first principles with polynomials. – A-Level Student Jul 24 '20 at 11:40
  • If you only know how to work with polynomials, you don't yet have the tools to generalize this, unfortunately. – Cameron Williams Jul 24 '20 at 11:43
  • I think I could follow the argument if you showed it to me, please. Just to make clear: I can work with virtually all functions and their derivatives, but not from first principles. – A-Level Student Jul 24 '20 at 11:43
  • 2
    You first need a working definition of $x^\alpha$. In your case the easiest is $x^\alpha=\exp(\alpha\log x)$ (but then you will need to accept exponential and log have their derivatives). Failing that, you need to have it defined for rational $\alpha$ and positive $x$, then use a limit argument for general $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$, then work really hard to show you can change the order of the two limits $\alpha$ and $h$. – user10354138 Jul 24 '20 at 11:44
  • And interchanging limits is a very deep and dark area of analysis (effectively the rigorous underpinnings of calculus) to the above point. – Cameron Williams Jul 24 '20 at 11:46
  • Are you asserting that we can't use the general binomial expansion because its proof uses the Taylor series and thus the expression we have to prove? I got lost in those connected sentences. Hence the doubt. – Sameer Baheti Jul 24 '20 at 11:48
  • @ Sameer Baheti, yes. – A-Level Student Jul 24 '20 at 11:48

10 Answers10

14

Write $x^n=e^{n\log x}$ (no restriction on $n$ being an integer) and use the chain rule to show that $$\frac{d(e^{n\log x})}{dx}=e^{n\log x}\times\frac{n}{x}=nx^{n-1}.$$

  • The only downside to this approach is it assumes the derivative exists. – zz20s Jul 11 '16 at 16:15
  • 4
    This is the only answer that addresses what the original question seems to be asking--show that the power rule holds for exponents which are not positive integers. – Jakob Hansen Jul 11 '16 at 16:19
  • thanks, I don't think the proof for the derivative of e^x requires the derivative of p series. It's simply $\frac{d(e^x)}{dx} = e^x \cdot{ f'(0)} = e^x\cdot{c}$, selecting e such that c = 1. That's fairly rigorous, I think.. – jg mr chapb Jul 11 '16 at 16:25
  • 2
    If you define $\log(x) = \int_1^x \frac{1}{t},dt$ and $\exp$ as the inverse of $\log$, all you need to find the derivative of $\exp$ is the inverse function theorem. And, I suppose, the fundamental theorem of calculus. – Jakob Hansen Jul 11 '16 at 16:32
  • @JakobHansen Yet, then one needs to show that $\log(x^n)=n\log(x)$ for real values of $n$. If $n\mathbb{Q}$, this is straightforward using the integral definition of the logarithm function. But to extend to the reals, one needs to invoke a density argument, which is not difficult, but does require some more work. – Mark Viola Feb 09 '19 at 21:08
4

you want to calculate $\lim\limits _{h\to 0}\frac{(x+h)^n-x^n}{h}$

use the binomial theorem:

$$\lim\limits _{h\to 0}\frac{(x+h)^n-x^n}{h}=\lim\limits _{h\to 0}\frac{\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n}{k}x^kh^{n-k}-x^n}{h}=$$

$$\lim\limits _{h\to 0} nx^{n-1}+h(\binom{n}{2}x^{n-2}+\dots+\binom{n}{n}h^{n-1})$$

The part in the right clearly goes to zero.

Asinomás
  • 105,651
  • This for me is the best proof because the limit in the infinitesimal change in $x^n$ per infinitesimal change in $x$ is the definition of differentiation; the limit of difference quotients – it's a hire car baby Jul 11 '16 at 16:14
  • then what is the proof of the binomial theorem for reals? – jg mr chapb Jul 11 '16 at 16:27
  • it's purely algebraic, by induction, it works for any commutative ring. – Asinomás Jul 11 '16 at 16:28
  • and if you only want it for $(1+x)^n$ it works for any ring. – Asinomás Jul 11 '16 at 16:29
  • 5
    The problem is that OP wants $n$ to be real. – quid Jul 11 '16 at 16:30
  • @gebra "the binomial theorem for reals" is badly stated. The object of the binomial fields is presumed to by the base elements. The exponents are assumed to be purely integer and to be merely notation for multiple application of the binary operation of whatever commutative ring the bases belong to. – fleablood Jul 11 '16 at 16:51
4

$$y = x^n$$ $$\ln(y) = n\ln(x)$$ $$\frac{y'}{y} = \frac{n}{x}$$ $$y' = nx^{n - 1}$$ The derivatives of logarithms are defined by definition.

Kaynex
  • 2,448
  • "defined by definition"? This is also a (the second) satisfactory proof but essentially equivalent to the accepted answer. – jg mr chapb Jul 11 '16 at 17:35
  • who posted first – jg mr chapb Jul 11 '16 at 17:35
  • "Defined by definition" being that the logarithm can be defined as the antiderivative of 1/x. The other answerer posted first. And you're right, the answers are equivalent. I just used safer derivatives. – Kaynex Jul 12 '16 at 05:51
  • He deserves the "correct answer". I simply posted this as this is the method I would personally use. – Kaynex Jul 12 '16 at 06:11
4

I wrote an answer to a question that was closed as a duplicate of this one. I thought I would add a different answer to this question.


Integer Case

For integer $n\ge0$, the Binomial Theorem says $$ (x+h)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n}{k}x^{n-k}h^k\tag1 $$ So $$ \frac{(x+h)^n-x^n}h=\sum_{k=1}^n\binom{n}{k}x^{n-k}h^{k-1}\tag2 $$ Therefore, taking the limit, we get $$ \begin{align} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}x^n &=\binom{n}{1}x^{n-1}\\[3pt] &=nx^{n-1}\tag3 \end{align} $$


Inverting

Suppose that $$ x=y^m\tag4 $$ Taking the derivative of $(4)$ using $(3)$ and substituting $y=x^{\frac1m}$ yields $$ 1=my^{m-1}\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}x}=mx^{1-\frac1m}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}x^{\frac1m}\tag5 $$ Therefore, $$ \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}x^{\frac1m}=\frac1mx^{\frac1m-1}\tag6 $$


Rational Case

Applying the Chain Rule with $(3)$ and $(6)$ gives $$ \begin{align} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}x^{\frac nm} &=n\left(x^{\frac1m}\right)^{n-1}\frac1mx^{\frac1m-1}\\[3pt] &=\frac nmx^{\frac nm-1}\tag7 \end{align} $$


Real Case

When a sequence of functions converges pointwise and their derivatives converge uniformly, the derivative of the limit equals the limit of the derivatives (see this question). Therefore, the full case for non-negative exponents follows by continuity.


Negative Case

Applying the Chain Rule with $(7)$ and $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\frac1x=-\frac1{x^2}$, we get $$ \begin{align} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}x^{-s} &=-\frac1{(x^s)^2}sx^{s-1}\\ &=-sx^{-s-1}\tag8 \end{align} $$

robjohn
  • 345,667
  • Don’t you need derivatives to prove binomial theorem for negative integers? To fix this, you could differentiate x^-1 directly using limits and extend it to negatives using the product rule. But since it’s the same pattern for all reals, I feel that the best proof does it all in one clean swoop, so far the only instance of that has been to derive it from exponential derivatives – jg mr chapb Feb 10 '19 at 23:19
  • It can be done without derivatives, but I have added something for negative exponents. – robjohn Feb 10 '19 at 23:31
  • This argument is mathematically more interesting imo – jg mr chapb Feb 10 '19 at 23:38
4

We can use a method called logarithmic differentiation: \begin{align} y&=x^n\\ \log y&=\log x^n\\ \log y&=n\log x\\ \frac{d}{dx}\left(\log y\right)&=\frac{d}{dx}\left(n\log x\right)\\ \frac{y'}{y}&=\frac{n}{x}\\ y'&=\frac{n}{x}(y)\\ y'&=\frac{n}{x}(x^n)\\ y'&=nx^{n-1} \end{align} This uses the fact that $$\frac{d}{dx}\left(\log x\right)=\frac1x.$$


To see why this works for the part of the domain $x<0$ (since we are working with logarithms), we can consider that $$x=(-1)(-x)\implies x^n=(-1)^n(-x)^n$$ and we arrive at the same result, using the definition of the complex logarithm: \begin{align} y&=(-1)^n(-x)^n\\ \log y&=\log(-1)^n+\log(-x)^n\\ \log y&=\log(-1)^n+\log(|-x|)^n+i\pi\\ \end{align} Here, on the right side of the equation, the first and last terms are constants, which yield a derivative of $0$.

Andrew Chin
  • 7,389
  • 1
    Note that this is limited to only working for positive $x$, even in situations where you may be able to push to the non positive reals. (Though we already know that case!) – Cameron Williams Jul 24 '20 at 11:44
  • Thanks for that answer @Andrew Chin, that's very helpful. Could we even make it for negative values of $x$ by taking $\ln{\lvert x\rvert}$ and differentiating? – A-Level Student Jul 24 '20 at 11:53
  • @A-levelStudent I have made an edit to my answer. – Andrew Chin Jul 24 '20 at 12:12
2

Hint
Use induction along with the product rule.

Dark
  • 1,592
2

For real $n$,

$$\lim_{h\to0}\frac{(x+h)^n-x^n}n=\lim_{h\to0}\frac{\left(1+\frac hx\right)^n-1}hx^n=\lim_{h\to0}\frac{\left(1+\frac hx\right)^n-1}{\frac hx}x^{n-1}=\phi(n)x^{n-1},$$ as the last limit cannot depend on $x$.

Then from

$$(x^{n+m})'=(x^nx^m)'$$ you can deduce the linearity

$$\phi(n+m)=\phi(n)+\phi(m).$$

With the obvious $\phi(1)=1$, this should be enough to prove that $\phi$ is the identity.

  • 1
    This is a really nice proof, I was convinced that the answer lied in the fact that $x^{n+m} = x^nx^m$ for all n and m, but couldn't figure out a proof. All the correct answers have used it so far so that's probably what it is. Thanks.. – jg mr chapb Jul 13 '16 at 21:08
  • This only proves that if the function is differentiable and if $x^{n+m}=x^nx^m$, then $\phi(n)$ is defined, $\phi(n+m)=\phi(n)+\phi(m)$ and $\phi(1)=1$. But you have to do more work from deducing from $\phi(m+n)=\phi(m)+\phi(n)$ and $\phi(1)=1$ that $\phi(n)=n$: you're basically assuming $\phi$ is continuous. – egreg Jul 17 '16 at 09:06
  • @egreg: right, this is not a complete proof. As usual, you don't know what are the preliminaries of the question. –  Jul 21 '16 at 17:28
  • This is enough to prove $\phi(n)=n$ for rational $n$. It follows for real $n$ by monotonicity. This assumes, however, that $x^n$ is monotone in $n$. – Simply Beautiful Art Jul 24 '20 at 12:35
2

I saw a lot of talk in comments (and comments moved to chat) about the Taylor series. I also indicated an answer in my comments which avoids Taylor's series and instead proves derivative of $x^{n}$ using basic algebra.

From OP's post it is clear that an answer based on binomial theorem which holds for general real index is desired. View point of OP is correct, but requires some more effort to establish the general binomial theorem and my post below does exactly that.


In what follows we assume that $x > 0, n \in \mathbb{R}$. The questions asks us to prove $$\frac{d}{dx}x^{n} = nx^{n - 1}\tag{1}$$ Note that when $n$ is irrational the symbol $x^{n}$ can not be handled by algebra and hence it is useless to expect a proof which is based on algebra alone.

However when $n$ is rational then $x^{n}$ is an algebraic function and it makes sense to have an (almost) algebraic proof. So we first deal with the simpler case when $n$ is rational. One of the approaches is to use definition of derivative and focus on the ratio $$\frac{(x + h)^{n} - x^{n}}{h}$$ and here we can write $$(x + h)^{n} = x^{n}(1 + h/x)^{n}$$ and then apply general binomial theorem to expand $(1 + h/x)^{n}$ as an infinite series. There are two viewpoints regarding this approach:

  • This approach appears circular because expansion of $(1 + h/x)^{n}$ when $n$ is not a positive integer essentially requires Taylor series and involves the derivative of $x^{n}$. This point of view is almost correct.
  • It is possible to establish the general binomial expansion of $(1 + h/x)^{n}$ even when $n$ is not a positive integer without the use of derivatives. This is the point of view of this answer.

Let $n \in \mathbb{R}, |x| < 1$ so that the series $$f(x, n) = 1 + nx + \frac{n(n - 1)}{2!}x^{2} + \frac{n(n - 1)(n - 2)}{3!}x^{3} + \cdots\tag{2}$$ is absolutely convergent and $f(x, n)$ is well defined.

Let $p, q$ be positive integers then we know from the binomial theorem for positive integral index that $$f(x, p) = (1 + x)^{p}, f(x, q) = (1 + x)^{q}, f(x, p + q) = (1 + x)^{p + q}$$ and therefore $$f(x, p)f(x, q) = f(x, p + q)$$ and considering the coefficients of $x^{r}$ on both sides we see that $$\binom{p + q}{r} = \binom{p}{0}\binom{q}{r} + \cdots + \binom{p}{i}\binom{q}{r - i} + \cdots + \binom{p}{r}\binom{q}{0}\tag{3}$$ where we have by definition $$\binom{a}{0} = 1, \binom{a}{r} = \frac{a(a - 1)(a - 2)\cdots (a - r + 1)}{r!}\tag{4}$$ for all real $a$ and positive integer $r$ so that the general binomial coefficient is actually a polynomial in $a$.

We can now see that the identity $(3)$ is an identity which involves polynomials in two variables $p, q$ and it holds for any infinity of values of $p, q$ (it holds for all positive integers $p, q$) and hence it holds identically. Therefore the identity $(3)$ is true for all variables $p,q$. Now by multiplication of infinite series we see that the following identity holds for all real variables $p, q$ and $|x| < 1$: $$f(x, p)f(x, q) = f(x, p + q)\tag{5}$$ and thus $f(x, p)$ behaves like an exponential function as far as parameter $p$ is concerned. It follows by the use of the above functional equation that $$f(x, n) = \{f(x, 1)\}^{n}$$ if $n$ is rational. Hence we have $$(1 + x)^{n} = 1 + nx + \frac{n(n - 1)}{2!}x^{2} + \frac{n(n - 1)(n - 2)}{3!}x^{3} + \cdots\tag{6}$$ for all rational values of $n$. This means that the general binomial theorem for rational index can be proved without any use of derivatives and using this we can establish the derivative of $x^{n}$ for rational $n$.

What happens when $n$ is irrational? The first problem is to define $x^{n}$ for irrational $n$ and there are many approaches and the simplest one is define it as $x^{n} = \exp(n\log x)$. With this definition it is easy to prove derivative formula using derivatives of exponential and logarithmic functions.

Another approach is to define $x^{n}$ for irrational $n$ via continuity. Thus if $n_{k}$ is a sequence of rationals tending to irrational $n$ as $k \to \infty$ then we define $x^{n}$ to the limit of $x^{n_{k}}$ as $k \to \infty$. If we adopt this definition then we can prove with some effort that the function $f(x, n)$ is a continuous function of $n$ for all real $n$ and fixed $x$ with $|x| < 1$. And hence by continuity the general binomial theorem holds for all real index $n$ and our problem of calculating derivative of $x^{n}$ is handled in usual manner indicated above.

  • no need for the binomial coefs and all those details. It is obvious $(x+h)^n$ is a polynomial in $h$ and that the two first terms are $x^n+nh x^{n-1}$ – reuns Jul 17 '16 at 07:03
  • 1
    @user1952009: A typo in your comment. It should be $$(x + h)^{n} = x^{n} + nhx^{n - 1} + O(h^{2})$$ But how do you prove it without using any sort of derivatives. The only way out is to use some algebra of inequalities (see the linked answer) or to use binomial theorem for general index. It also appears from your comment that you think $n$ to be a positive integer. My answer deals with the case when $n$ is not a positive integer. – Paramanand Singh Jul 17 '16 at 07:05
  • @user1952009: I don't think any of my details are unnecessary. remove any stuff and the answer becomes wrong. Let me know which step you think is unnecessary. – Paramanand Singh Jul 17 '16 at 07:09
  • yes your post messed me up with all those unnecessary details. and $n = 1/q$ is handled by the derivative of the inverse function $(f^{-1}(x))' = \frac{1}{f^{-1}(f'(x))}$, and $a$ real as the limiting case of $p/q$ – reuns Jul 17 '16 at 07:09
  • 1
    @user1952009: when you use inverse function stuff you are already dealing with derivative laws. The answer I gave uses just the bare minimum definition of derivative. The approach using derivative law is short and smart but not exactly as desired by OP. His approach to use the definition of derivative and not derivative laws. – Paramanand Singh Jul 17 '16 at 07:12
  • a 50 lines answer for such a basic question is never a good idea. and the derivative of the inverse function is pre-calculus. (pre power series, exponential, etc.) – reuns Jul 17 '16 at 07:16
2

Here is one more suggestion without use of logarithms.

You know $\frac{d}{dx} x^n=nx^{n-1}$ for all integers, including when $n$ is negative.

Now let us get one step further extending this to rational numbers by asking ourselves what is $\frac{d}{dx} x^{\frac{p}{q}}$ where $p$ and $q\neq 0$ are integer numbers.

Let $y=x^{\frac{p}{q}}$ and then take power to $q$ on both sides so that you get $y^q=x^p$. Now take derivate with respect to $x$ on both sides to get

$$qy^{q-1}\frac{dy}{dx}=px^{p-1} \Leftrightarrow \frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{px^{p-1}}{qy^{q-1}}=\frac{p}{q}x^{p-1}y^{1-q}=\frac{p}{q}x^{p-1+\frac{p}{q}-p}=\frac{p}{q}x^{\frac{p}{q}-1}.$$

To extend to the final case $y=x^a$ for irrational $a$ you need to take limits. For simplicity, let $x$ be positive and to show $\frac{dy}{dx}=ax^{a-1}$ you take the limit from both sides of the rational case such that

$$\frac{dy}{dx}x^{a_{-}}<\frac{dy}{dx}x^{a}<\frac{dy}{dx}x^{a_{+}}$$

where rational number $a_{-}=\max\{\frac{p}{q}:\frac{p}{q}<a, p,q\in\mathbb N\}$ and rantional number $a_{+}=\min\{\frac{p}{q}:\frac{p}{q}>a, p,q\in\mathbb N\}$. Since limits $x^{a_{-}}=x^{a_{+}}$ we have finished our proof.

  • Hi thanks for the answer. What about for negative values of $p$ OR $q$ (ie not both)? – A-Level Student Jul 24 '20 at 16:19
  • One way for negative exponents is to go the logarithms way but that requires one knows/proves that the derivative of lnx is 1x but then we get again in trouble since what if x is negative? For negative x we need to look into complex analysis, which is an interesting subject, but not much I remember after 26 years :-) – Mikael Helin Jul 24 '20 at 17:46
0

Some feeling of the existing awkwardness prompts me to write own version, in hope it, also will be useful. I will start the same way as Yves Daoust, but continue in a different way

$$\lim_{h\to0}\frac{(x+h)^n-x^n}n=x^{n-1}\lim_{h\to0}\frac{\left(1+\frac hx\right)^n-1}{\frac hx} = x^{n-1}\lim_{\alpha \to0}\frac{\left(1+\alpha\right)^n-1}{\alpha}$$ Now let's take $\beta = (1+\alpha)^n-1$, then we have, by continuity, when $\alpha \to 0$, then $ \beta \to 0$ and $$\frac{\left(1+\alpha\right)^n-1}{\alpha} = \frac{\beta}{\alpha} = \frac{\beta}{\ln (1+ \beta)} \cdot n \cdot \frac{\ln (1+\alpha)}{\alpha}$$ now, knowing by logarithm continuity, that $\frac{\beta}{\ln (1+ \beta)}$ and $\frac{\ln (1+\alpha)}{\alpha}$ tends to $1$, we obtained desired.

zkutch
  • 13,410