Ever since I learned elementary calculus, I have been wondering about the proof of the unique self-differentiation of Cex, C a constant. One of the proofs below I was led to by a calculus textbook; another I figured out by myself.
1: Using the Mean Value Theorem
Let f(x) be a function so that f(x)=f′(x). Define a new function
g(x)=exf(x)(1)
Now, find g′(x):
g′(x)=e2xexf′(x)−exf(x)
g′(x)=e2xex(f′(x)−f(x))
But our base assumption is that f(x)=f′(x), or that f′(x)−f(x)=0. In other words,
g′(x)=0
Now, the Mean Value Theorem implies that only constant functions have zero derivative. This means that g(x)=C for some constant C. Plugging this into (1) yields:
C=exf(x)
f(x)=Cex
2: Using the Taylor Expansion of ex
Note: I would like to thank Alexander Gibson for pointing out that this proof only applies to the set of analytic functions.
Once again, let f(x) be a function so that f(x)=f′(x). Notice that this implies the following:
f(x)=f′(x)=f′′(x)=...=f(n)(x)
because
f(x)=f′(x)⟹h→0limhf(x+h)−f(x)=h→0limhf′(x+h)−f′(x)⟹f′(x)=f′′(x)
and so forth. We can also say that
f(a)=f′(a)=f′′(a)=...=f(n)(a)=C
for some constant C. Use the theory of Taylor series to expand f(x):
f(x)=f(a)+f′(a)(x−a)+f′′(a)2!(x−a)2+...+f(n)(a)n!(x−a)n+...
for f(x) around any point x=a. Inputting our initial assumption into the Taylor expansion of f(x) yields:
f(x)=C+C(x)+C2!(x−a)2+...+Cn!(x−a)n+...
Divide both sides by C:
Cf(x)=1+(x−a)+2!(x−a)2+...+n!(x−a)n+...
Notice that the right hand side is the Taylor expansion of ex about a point x=a. We can conclude that
Cf(x)=ex
f(x)=Cex
Note: It was okay to assume that the Taylor series converges, because it always does in a small interval about x−a.
Whew! That was a lot of theory. If you want to share your own proof of the unique self-differentiation property of Cex, then share it down below in the comments.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Here is a derivation for Euler's number, based on the self-differentiation property. This is a less ambitious derivation than the one posted in the note. It doesn't attempt to prove the uniqueness of the self-differentiation property.
Suppose the following is true for some constant A over all x.
dxdAx=Ax
Evaluate the difference quotient:
dxdAx=dxAx+dx−Ax=AxAdx−1=dxA=(1+dx)1/dx
The limit of this expression as dx approaches zero is Euler's number.
Log in to reply
It's a clever proof! Not what I was expecting, but it's smart!
Log in to reply
I was attempting something less ambitious (simply a derivation of Euler's number). I have made notes explaining that.
Log in to reply
y=dxdy
y1dy=dx
∫y1dy=∫dx
lny=x+C1
elny=ex+C1
y=exeC1
y=Cex
Log in to reply
Toke dey ke? lol.
The second proof doesn't necessarily follow, you've assumed the taylor series of f(x) converges, or in other words, that f(x) is what's called analytic.Some functions can be infinitely differentiable(called smooth) and still not be analytic, for instance e^(-1/x), which has all its derivatives at 0 equal to 0, and yet it eventually grows to be much bigger than 0.
However, luckily, in complex analysis, this distinction completely dissolves, and it turns out that even if just one derivative exists, the entire function is analytic, which is just one example of why everything is better in the complex case.
Log in to reply
Thank you for your advice! I have generalized my proof for any interval about a, where a is any point along the x-axis.
Log in to reply
Nope, not even that works, some dastardly functions are not analytic no matter where they are centered around
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Isn't the first proof some sort of a circular argument?