Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Math Help - Derivative at f1(0)

  1. #16
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Let me state how I define exponentials.

    Define \ln x = \int_1^x \frac{1}{t} dt \mbox{ for }x>0

    It is not hard to show that,
    1) \ln x is an increasing function.
    2) \ln x is differenciable and therefore continous for (0,\infty).
    3) (\ln x)' = \frac{1}{x} \mbox{ for }x>0.
    4)There exists a number, called e, so that \ln e = 1.

    We see that \ln x is a one-to-one function. Define \exp x to be its inverse function on its range.

    It is not hard to show that \exp x is increasing, differenciable and so continous, and furthermore, (\exp x)' = \exp x.

    We have the following supprising property that if q is a rational number then \exp q = e^q. So we define e^r, to be \exp r. With that we generalize exponents as follows a^x = e^{\ln a x} = \exp (\ln a x) \mbox{ for }a>0.

    The difficutly besides for using the definition is to have a formal definition of what an exponent means.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #17
    Senior Member ecMathGeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    436
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    Let me state how I define exponentials.

    Define \ln x = \int_1^x \frac{1}{t} dt \mbox{ for }x>0

    It is not hard to show that,
    1) \ln x is an increasing function.
    2) \ln x is differenciable and therefore continous for (0,\infty).
    3) (\ln x)' = \frac{1}{x} \mbox{ for }x>0.
    4)There exists a number, called e, so that \ln e = 1.

    We see that \ln x is a one-to-one function. Define \exp x to be its inverse function on its range.

    It is not hard to show that \exp x is increasing, differenciable and so continous, and furthermore, (\exp x)' = \exp x.

    We have the following supprising property that if q is a rational number then \exp q = e^q. So we define e^r, to be \exp r. With that we generalize exponents as follows a^x = e^{\ln a x} = \exp (\ln a x) \mbox{ for }a>0.

    The difficutly besides for using the definition is to have a formal definition of what an exponent means.
    Your definitions of the natural logerithm are completely valid, but I'm confused by something. Why would you define exp q to be anything other than e^q? I thought exp q was simply another notation for e^q. Am I mistaken?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #18
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,966
    Thanks
    1785
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    Define \ln x = \int_1^x \frac{1}{t} dt \mbox{ for }x>0
    This is a standard definition for the logarithm function.
    Using u-substitution we prove that: ln(a+b)=ln(a)+ln(b).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #19
    Senior Member ecMathGeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    436
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    This is a standard definition for the logarithm function.
    Using u-substitution we prove that: ln(a+b)=ln(a)+ln(b).
    Did you mean ln(ab) = ln(a) + ln(b)?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #20
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by ecMathGeek View Post
    Your definitions of the natural logerithm are completely valid, but I'm confused by something. Why would you define exp q to be anything other than e^q? I thought exp q was simply another notation for e^q. Am I mistaken?
    Okay,

    1)We define \ln x as the integral above.

    2)Using FTC and other things we develop important properties for \ln x such as: \ln ab = \ln a + \ln b \mbox{ for }a,b>0.

    3)I said that \ln x is continous and increasing as one of its properties so it has an inverse function which we define as \exp x.

    Note, #3 does not have anything to do with e from the way it is defined above.

    4)It can be shown that if q is a rational number then \exp q = e^q i.e. if q=a/b then \exp q = (\sqrt[b]{e} )^a.

    5)So we see that the \exp function evaluated at q is the same thing as raising the number e (which is define to be so that \ln e) to that power.

    6)Now is seems "natural" to write \exp (x) rather as e^x because for rational powers it makes sense, i.e. same as raising exponents. But for irrational powers (though they were still not define) this function still makes sense! Because \exp x is defined for all real x.

    I think this seems strange to you is that you never learned about what an "exponent" means. Yes a^n = e\cdot a\cdot ... \cdot a n-times. That is how we define them for positive integers. [math[a^0=1[/tex] that is a mere definition. But what about a^q where q is rational? You defined it as finding deminator roots. But how do you define a^r where r is any arbitrary number? That takes works. The approach above is the standard and simplest and nicest approach to this problem. Meaning, we define the exponent of e to be L provided that \ln L = e.


    ---
    My point is that the limit \lim_{x\to c} \frac{a^x - a^c}{x-c} is hard to find because we never appropriately defined what a^x means for a>0.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. contuous weak derivative $\Rightarrow$ classic derivative ?
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 22nd 2011, 03:37 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 24th 2011, 12:40 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 6th 2009, 03:51 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 7th 2009, 02:59 PM
  5. Fréchet derivative and Gâteaux derivative
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 23rd 2008, 05:40 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum