4

Derivative of the Exponential Function

 2 years ago
source link: https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2022/derivative-of-the-exponential-function/
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
neoserver,ios ssh client
September 12, 2022 at 20:23 Tags Math

It's a known piece of math folklore that e was "discovered" by Jacob Bernoulli in the 17th century, when he was pondering compound interest, and defined thus [1]:

e is extremely important in mathematics for several reasons; one of them is its useful behavior under derivation and integration; specifically, that:

In this post I want to present a couple of simple proofs of this fundamental fact.

Proof using the limit definition

As a prerequisite for this proof, let's reorder the original definition of e slightly. If we perform a change of variable replacing n by , we get:

This equation will become useful a bit later.

Let's start our proof by spelling out the definition of a derivative:

A bit of algebra and observing that does not depend on h gives us:

At this point we're stuck; clearly as h approaches 0, both the numerator and denominator approach 0 as well. The way out - as is often the case in such scenarios - is a sneaky change of variable. Recall equation (1) - how could we use it here?

The change of variable we'll use is , which implies that . Note that as h approaches zero, so does m. Rewriting our last expression, we get:

Equation (1) tells us that as m approaches zero, approaches e. Substituting that into the denominator we get:

Proof using power series expansion

It's always fun to prove the same thing in multiple ways; while I'm sure there are many other techniques to find the derivative of , one I particularly like for its simplicity is a its power series expansion.

Similarly to the way e itself was defined empirically, one can show that:

(For a proof of this equation, see the Appendix)

Let's use the Binomial theorem to open up the parentheses inside the limit:

We'll unroll the sum a bit, so it's easier to manipulate algebraically. We can use the standard formula for "choose n out of k" and get:

Inside the limit, we can simplify all the n-c terms with a constant c to just n, since compared to infinity c is negligible. This means that all these terms can be simplified as , and so on. All these powers of n cancel out in the numerator and denominator, and we get:

And since the contents of the limit don't actually depend on n any more, this leaves us with a well-known formula for approximating [2]:

We can finally use this power series expansion to calculate the derivative of quite trivially. Since it's a sum of terms, the derivative is the sum of the derivatives of the terms:

Look at that, we've got back,

Appendix

Let's see why:

We'll start with the limit and will arrive at . Using a change of variable :

Given our change of variable, since n approaches infinity, so does m. Therefore, we get:

Nothing in the limit depends on x, so that exponent can be seen as applying to the whole limit. And the limit is the definition of e; therefore, we get ,


[1]What I love about this definition is that it's entirely empirical. Try to substitute successively larger numbers for n in the equation, and you'll see that the result approaches the value e more and more closely. The limit of this process for an infinite n was called e. Bernoulli did all of this by hand, which is rather tedious. His best estimate was that e is "larger than 2 and a half but smaller than 3".
[2]Another way to get this formula is from the Maclaurin series expansion of , but we couldn't use that here since Maclaurin series require derivatives, while we're trying to figure out what the derivative of is.

About Joyk


Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK