1

is there a way using basic means (no derivatives, no using the fact that $\ln$ and $\exp$ are mutually inverse) to show that $$a \mapsto \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{a^h -1}h$$is strictly monotonously increasing?
I would like to use something along the lines of $(a+\delta)^h \overset{(1)}{>} a^h$ for $h,\delta>0$ but that only leads to $$\lim_{h \to 0} \frac{(a+\delta)^h -1}h \geq \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{a^h -1}h$$ in the limit, of course. There should be a better estimate for $(1)$, I think, but I cannot come up with something.
Any hint is highly aprreciated. Thanks a lot!

Targon
  • 1,114
  • 2
    If we are going to this basic level, we should (i) define clearly what $a^h$ is and (ii) if you are able to demonstrate the limit actually exists, using your basic axiomatic definition, you can maybe use the same technique to figure out this is strictly monotone – FShrike Oct 11 '23 at 13:58
  • I think you may want to fix your title to "monotonicity of $a\mapsto \frac{d}{dx} a^x$ at $x=0$", (or maybe just $a\mapsto \frac{d}{dx}|_{x=0} a^x$) – M W Oct 11 '23 at 23:09

1 Answers1

1

We will show this for only for $a>1$ and with limits from the right, but the methods will be easily modified to give a correct general proof for the left hand limit and the case $a<1$ as well. The only assumptions will be that exponentiation has already been defined as a continuous extension of rational exponentiation, as done here, for example.

First, note that once you believe the limit exists for each $a$, you can establish this pretty easily. That is, you can observe that for each $n\in\mathbb N$, and each $b>1$, we have

$$\frac{b^{\frac{1}{n}}-1}{\frac{1}{n}} = \frac{\left(\frac{b-1}{b^{\frac{n-1}{n}}+b^{\frac{n-2}{n}}+\dots+1}\right)}{\frac{1}{n}} \geq \frac{\left(\frac{b-1}{nb}\right)}{\frac{1}{n}}= \frac{b-1}{b}>0,$$ so if the limit exists, we have $$\lim_{h\to 0^+} \frac{b^h-1}{h} \geq \frac{b-1}{b}>0.$$

Then for $a_1<a_2$, we let $b=\frac{a_2}{a_1}$, and obtain

$$\lim_{h\to 0^+}\frac{a_2^h-1}{h} - \lim_{h\to 0^+}\frac{a_1^h-1}{h} = \lim_{h\to 0^+}\frac{a_2^h-a_1^h}{h} = \lim_{h\to 0^+}a_1^h\left(\frac{b^h-1}{h}\right) >0.$$

It remains to show the limit exists. This will follow immediately from the greatest lower bound property, provided we can show that the map $h\mapsto \frac{a^h-1}{h}$ is increasing.

To prove that the aforementioned map is increasing, we observe that by density of the rationals and continuity of exponentiation in $h$, we must only show this for $h$ rational, which in turn implies it suffices to show that for $p,q\in \mathbb N^+$ we have

$$\frac{a^{\frac{p+1}{q}}-1}{\frac{p+1}{q}}>\frac{a^{\frac{p}{q}}-1}{\frac{p}{q}},$$ or equivalently, $$\frac{a^{\frac{p+1}{q}}-1}{a^{\frac{p}{q}}-1}>\frac{\frac{p+1}{q}}{\frac{p}{q}}=1+\frac{1}{p}.$$ To see this, we simply let $b=a^{\frac{1}{q}}$ and expand the left side

$$\frac{b^{p+1}-1}{b^p-1} = \frac{b^p+b^{p-1}+\dots+1}{b^{p-1}+\dots+1} = 1+ \frac{b^p}{b^{p-1}+\dots+1} > 1+ \frac{b^p}{pb^p} = 1+\frac{1}{p}.$$

Update

While we can easily mimic the arguments above for the left hand limit, which I have left as an exercise, I should have mentioned that it still remains to establish that the left hand limit and right hand limit then coincide. To see this, we need merely observe that \begin{align*} \lim_{h\to 0^+}\frac{a^h-1}{h}-\lim_{h\to 0^-}\frac{a^{h}-1}{h} &= \lim_{h\to 0^+}\left(\frac{a^h-1}{h}-\frac{a^{-h}-1}{-h}\right) = \lim_{h\to 0^+}\frac{a^h+a^{-h}-2}{h}\\ &= \lim_{h\to 0^+}\left(a^{-h}\cdot \frac{(a^{h}-1)}{h}\cdot (a^h-1)\right)=0, \end{align*} with the last equality following from the fact we have already shown the middle factor converges to a finite number.

M W
  • 9,866
  • 1
    thank you for your thorough answer!minor thing that made me stop: in your first inequality you are estimating $b^{\frac{n-1}n} + b^{\frac{n-2}n} + \ldots + 1 \geq n \cdot 1 $ (I think). Since this is the denominator, it results in a $\leq$ for the inequality, not a $\geq$. But we can instead estimate $b^{\frac{n-1}n} + b^{\frac{n-2}n} + \ldots + 1 \leq n \cdot b $, get a $\ge$ for the ineqality as desired, and then still have $b$ in the denominator, as you wrote on the right side.
    This way the inequality still works out and we carry on. I have to think some more about the rest.Thanks again!
    – Targon Oct 13 '23 at 10:13
  • @Targon yes you are absolutely correct, based on the $b$ in the denominator I think that’s what I meant originally, have fixed now, good catch! – M W Oct 13 '23 at 18:35