By the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus , we know that e x = ∫ e x d x . With a bit of unconventional calculus, it follows that:
e x − ∫ e x d x = 0
( 1 − ∫ d x ) e x = 0
e x = ( 1 − ∫ d x 1 ) ( 0 )
e x = ( 1 + ( ∫ ) d x + ( ∫ ) 2 d x + ( ∫ ) 3 d x . . . ) ( 0 )
e x = ( 1 + ∫ d x + ∬ d x + ∭ d x . . . ) ( 0 )
e x = ( 1 + x + 2 ! x 2 + 3 ! x 3 . . . n ! x n . . . )
e x = n = 0 ∑ ∞ n ! x n
By substituting x = 1 into the equation, we obtain e = 1 + 1 + 2 ! 1 + 3 ! 1 + 4 ! 1 . . . n ! 1 . . . , which is a remarkable property in itself. However, can we express any positive real number a as an infinite series of this form? If this is true, what is that series?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Nothing wrong with the solution, but the "proof" in the problem statement at least one issue. It's not at all clear how to define the operator ∫ ⋅ d x in such a way that the argument works. Keep in mind that the indefinite integral itself is only defined modulo the constant functions.
Log in to reply
The book where I had learned about this property did not offer a proof, which means that I, like you, have to wonder on how 0 ∫ ( n ) d x = ∫ ( n ) 0 d x . Sorry about any issues this may have raised in your understanding of this problem. I think that it has to do with the definition f ′ ( x ) = d x d f ( x ) , along with the fact that antiderivatives can be regarded as functions. But who knows?
Log in to reply
One way to fix it is to instead define ( ∫ ⋅ d x ) f as the antiderivative of f such that ( ( ∫ ⋅ d x ) f ) ( 0 ) = 0 , but then ( 1 − ∫ ⋅ d x ) e x = e 0 − 0 = 1 . Inductively, ( ∫ ⋅ d x ) n ( 1 ) = n ! x n so that e x = ( 1 − ∫ ⋅ d x ) − 1 ( 1 ) = ( 1 + ( ∫ ⋅ d x ) + ( ∫ ⋅ d x ) 2 + ( ∫ ⋅ d x ) 3 + ⋯ + ( ∫ ⋅ d x ) n + ⋯ ) ( 1 ) = 1 + x + 2 x 2 + 3 ! x 3 + ⋯ + n ! x n + ⋯
Log in to reply
@Brian Moehring – Great solution for the gap!
To avoid this problem altogether, we can expand e x using Taylor summation:
f ( x ) = ∑ n = 0 ∞ n ! f ( n ) ( 0 ) ( x n )
As d x d e x = e x , and e 0 = 1 , we can conclude that the Taylor series approximation for e x is:
∑ n = 0 ∞ n ! x n = 1 + 1 + 2 ! x 2 + 3 ! x 3 + . . . + n ! x n . . .
Also, I recently found out that in some special cases, operators can be treated in the manner of the question.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Instead of substituting x with 1 , we set x = ln ( a ) , which gives us:
e ln ( a ) = 1 + ln ( a ) + 2 ! ln ( a ) 2 + 3 ! ln ( a ) 3 . . . n ! ln ( a ) n . . .
a = n = 0 ∑ ∞ n ! l n ( a ) n
To test this series, we can substitute a = 2 for the series' first six terms.
1 + ln ( 2 ) + 2 ! l n ( 2 ) 2 + 3 ! l n ( 2 ) 3 + 4 ! l n ( 2 ) 4 + 5 ! l n ( 2 ) 5 ≈ 1 . 9 9 9 8 2 9 2 8 1 1 0 6 1 3 8 9 ,
which is less than two ten-thousandths less that 2 . QED !