2

I'm trying to prove that $a^0 = 1$ using the calculus epsilon-delta limiting approach, i.e. I'm trying to prove the following

$$ \lim_{x\rightarrow 0} a^x = 1 $$

I'm not having much luck. At least part of the problem comes at the following point

$ |a^x - 1| < \varepsilon \Rightarrow \log_a(1-\varepsilon) < x < \log_a(1+\varepsilon) $

But then I can't write that as an inequality of the form

$-\delta(\varepsilon) < x < \delta(\varepsilon) \Rightarrow |x| < \delta(\varepsilon) $

Since

$-\log_a(1+\varepsilon) \neq \log_a(1-\varepsilon) $

(Or vice versa).

Help?

Note that, furthermore, if we say choose the function $\delta(\epsilon) = \log_a(1+\epsilon)$, we get

$-\log_a(1+\epsilon) < x < \log_a(1+\epsilon) \Rightarrow \frac{1}{1+\epsilon} < a^x < 1+\epsilon $

Which I can rewrite as

$ \frac{-\epsilon}{1+\epsilon} < a^x - 1 < \epsilon $

but I don't see ANY way of rewriting it as

$ |a^x - 1 | < \epsilon$

So...yeah

Mark Viola
  • 179,405
  • Prove and use $\ln(1+ϵ)<ϵ$ and $\log(1-ϵ)>-2ϵ$ for $0<ϵ<\frac12$. And also $\log_a(x)=\ln(x)/\ln(a)$. – Lutz Lehmann Nov 22 '16 at 00:14
  • To elaborate a bit on @LutzL: Saying "if $\epsilon$ is too large, we will pretend it's smaller in order to get control over some term" is a standard trick in $\epsilon$-$\delta$ proofs. Usually you pick $1$ out of convenience, but in this specific case that won't help at all, so $\frac12$ is a better choice. – Arthur Nov 22 '16 at 00:32
  • 1
    One could also start with the standard proof that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]a=1$ and use the monotonicity of the exponential. – Lutz Lehmann Nov 22 '16 at 00:42
  • 2
    You can't prove $a^0 = 1.$ You can, however, define $a^0 = 1. $ – zhw. Nov 22 '16 at 02:55
  • LutzL okay, how? – GeneralPancake Nov 22 '16 at 18:14

1 Answers1

2

METHODOLOGY $1$: ELEMENTARY/PRE-CALCULUS APPROACH

Herein we present an approach that relies only on an elementary pair of inequalities and the squeeze theorem. To that end, we begin with the following primer.


PRIMER: BOUNDS FOR THE EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION

In THIS ANSWER, I showed using only the limit definition of the exponential function and Bernoulli's Inequality that the exponential function satisfies the inequalities

$$\bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{1+x\le e^x\le \frac{1}{1-x}} \tag 1$$

for $x<1$.


Note that we can write $a^x-1=e^{x\log(a)}-1$. Then, using $(1)$ reveals for $x\log(a)<1$

$$x\log(a)\le a^x-1\le \frac{x\log(a)}{1-x\log(a)}\tag 2$$

whereupon applying the squeeze theorem to $(2)$, we obtain the coveted limit

$$\bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{\lim_{x\to 0}a^x=1}$$

And we are done!


$\displaystyle \delta-\epsilon$ PROOF:

To explicitly pursue a $\delta-\epsilon$ proof, we simply break the analysis into cases. For $a>1$, $\log(a)>0$. Next, we choose $|x|<\frac{1}{2\log(a)}$.

Let $\epsilon>0$ be given. Then, from $(2)$, we have for $x>0$

$$\begin{align} |a^x-1|&\le \left|\frac{x\log(a)}{1-x\log(a)}\right|\\\\ &<\epsilon \end{align}$$

when

$$|x|<\delta=\min\left(\frac{1}{2\log(a)},\frac{\epsilon}{(1+\epsilon)\log(a)}\right) \tag 3$$

From $(2)$, we have for $x<0$

$$\begin{align} |a^x-1|&\le \left|x\log(a)\right|\\\\ &<\epsilon \end{align}$$

whenever

$$|x|<\delta=\min\left(\frac{1}{2\log(a)},\frac{\epsilon}{\log(a)}\right) \tag 4$$

Putting together $(3)$ and $(4)$, we have $|a^x-1|<\epsilon$ whenever $|x|<\delta=\min\left(\frac{1}{2\log(a)},\frac{\epsilon}{(1+\epsilon)\log(a)}\right) $

The case for $0<a<1$ is left as an exercise.


METHODOLOGY $2$: BASIC CALCULUS APPROACH

Now, at the OP's request, we present an approach the avoids use of the natural logarithm function. The approach relies on nothing more than use of the Binomial Series.

Without loss of generality, we analyze the case for which $0<a<1$ and write $a=1-b$ where $0<b<1$. For $a>1$, we simply write $a^x=1/(1/a)^x$ and proceed accordingly).

We write the binomial series for $a^x=(1-b)^x$ as

$$\begin{align} a^x&=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\binom{x}{k}(-b)^k\\\\ &=1+\sum_{k=1}^\infty\binom{x}{k}(-b)^k\\\\ \end{align}$$

For $k\ge 1$ and $|x|<1/2$ it is easy to see that $\left|\binom{x}{k}\right|\le \frac{|x|}{2}$. So, for $|x|<1/2$, we have for any given $\epsilon>0$

$$\begin{align} \left|\sum_{k=1}^\infty\binom{x}{k}(-b)^k\right|&\le |x|\sum_{k=1}^\infty b^k\\\\ &=|x|\frac{b}{1-b}\\\\ &<\epsilon \end{align}$$

whenever $|x|<\delta=\min\left(\frac12,\frac{1-b}{b} \,\epsilon\right)$

as was to be shown!

Mark Viola
  • 179,405
  • How could this not get (+1)? – robjohn Nov 22 '16 at 05:18
  • @robjohn Thanks Rob! Much appreciative. – Mark Viola Nov 22 '16 at 15:24
  • @Dr.MV Okay, I'm gonna go through what you've posted here carefully. But I'd like you to consider a different perspective: You'll notice that in my original question I very explicitly used the base-a log, NOT the natural logarithm.

    What I'd like you to consider is the following: Suppose you were asked to solve the question I asked without knowing that e or the natural logarithm actually exist. Assume you can use the logarithm to whatever base you choose, except for the natural logarithm because you haven't "discovered" or otherwise been made aware of it yet.

    Thanks.

    – GeneralPancake Nov 22 '16 at 18:41
  • Are you permitting use of Taylor's Theorem? – Mark Viola Nov 22 '16 at 19:35
  • @Dr.MV I'm not sure, but ultimately one of the issues with Taylor's theorem is that it requires you be able to take the derivative of x^r, where r is any real number, right? Well how do you prove that D(x^r) = rx^(r-1) without the use of e? So now you need e, so how do you get to e without getting to the Taylor series?

    I know what I'm saying is confusing and probably doesn't make a lot of sense, I guess I'd have to see HOW you use Taylor's theorem to see if I think it's "permitted."

    – GeneralPancake Nov 22 '16 at 20:53
  • @Dr.MV I just noticed your edit. The first problem I see is that I don't know how to derive the binomial series, at least not for real numbers. For integers, yeah, but I actually tried to derive it for real number power and got nowhere. Do you have any suggestions? By the way I know I'm being really difficult, it's not strictly intentional, I'm just trying to make this a "closed" proof. – GeneralPancake Nov 22 '16 at 20:58
  • Actually, to show that $\frac{dx^r}{dx}=rx^{r-1}$ for real $r$ only requires showing that it is true for rational $r$ and a density argument. Perhaps you are thinking of $\frac{da^x}{dx}$. We don't need that to proceed. I've posted a second methodology that proceeds using the binomial theorem. – Mark Viola Nov 22 '16 at 20:58
  • I embedded a link. The binomial series is simply the MacLaurin Series for $(1+y)^\alpha=1+\alpha y+\frac12 \alpha(\alpha-1)y^2+\frac{1}{3!}\alpha(\alpha-1)(\alpha-2)y^2+\cdots$. Heuristically, note that as $\alpha\to 0$ the series goes to $1$. – Mark Viola Nov 22 '16 at 21:01
  • I don't have time to discuss this now. Have a read at the reference. I've given two rigorous approaches. After your review, I'm happy to help further. -Mark P.S. And feel free to best vote and up vote as you see fit. – Mark Viola Nov 22 '16 at 21:04