How can I prove that a function that is its own derivative exists? And how can I prove that this function is of the form $a(b^x)$?

share|cite|improve this question
1  
There are probably already a few posts about this problem on this site. For example, using Approach0 I was able to find this question: Proof that $C\exp(x)$ is the only set of functions for which $f(x) = f'(x)$. – Martin Sleziak 13 hours ago
    
3Blue1Brown actually goes through this in his "Essence of Calculus" videos that are posting on YouTube this week (sorry, but I'm not able to go searching for the link right now). – Paul Sinclair 5 hours ago
    
The first part's easy - can't you just write down $e^x$? Seriously, though, you don't need to do anything special - all you need to do to prove that "some $x$ exists" is produce an example of $x$. – EJoshuaS 5 hours ago
    
See this answer math.stackexchange.com/a/1292586/72031 – Paramanand Singh 5 hours ago
5  
One way to prove there exists such a function is to prove that the derivative of the zero function, $f(x) = 0$ for all $x,$ is the zero function. – Dave L. Renfro 5 hours ago
up vote 25 down vote accepted

There are two ways you could show it. The harder route would be to prove the existence and uniqueness theorem for ordinary differential equations, thus showing there exists solutions to $y'=y$.

The more direct way would be to just construct the function $e^x$ and show that it's its own derivative. You would start by defining $$\ln(x) = \int_1^x \frac{1}{t}\, dt$$ and prove that it's a strictly increasing function on $(0,\infty)$ with range $(-\infty, \infty)$. It follows that $\ln(x)$ has an inverse, which we should dub $e^x$. As for finding the derivative of this new and mysterious function: $$y=e^x$$ $$\ln(y)=x$$ Taking the $x$ derivative of both sides, $$\frac{y'}{y} = 1$$ $$\implies y'=y$$ And do show that every function which is its own derivative is a constant multiple of $e^x$, suppose that $f'=f$. Then, noting that $e^x$ is nowhere zero, $$\frac{d}{dx} \frac{f(x)}{e^x} = \frac{f'(x)e^x-f(x)e^x}{(e^x)^2} = \frac{f(x)e^x-f(x)e^x}{(e^x)^2} = 0$$ Therefore, $$\frac{f(x)}{e^x}$$ is constant since it has a connected domain, and so $f(x) = ce^x$ for some $c$.

share|cite|improve this answer
    
Thanks, is there a way to do it without defining the exponential function? – P.B.G. 13 hours ago
1  
Like @florence says in the first paragraph of the answer, this follows from the existence of (short-time) solutions to ordinary differential equations, which shows just as well that there is a function $f$ that satisfies the equation $F(x, y, y', \ldots, y^{(m)}) = 0$ for any reasonable function $F$. – Travis 13 hours ago
4  
I think it would be fair to first write the function as $\exp (x) $, then find $e=\exp (1) $, and show that the properties of the logarithm imply that $exp (x)=e^x $ for $x $ rational, and then extend to irrational. Also, you omitted the easiest way, which is to define $e^x=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac {x^k}{k!} $. – Martin Argerami 11 hours ago
2  
Why are $\ln x, e^x$ differentiable? That is worth mentioning at this level. – zhw. 8 hours ago
    
@MartinArgerami, the power series approach does not seem easier to me. You would at least have to say that the power series converges uniformly on each compactum and that that implies that you can differentiate (or easier: integrate, then use the fundamental theorem) "under the sum". – Carsten S 5 hours ago

$f(x) = 0$ is trivially its own derivative, and is of the form $a(b^x)$ for $a=0$ and any positive $b$. That's all we need to solve the problem posed.

share|cite|improve this answer
1  
+1. I like this simple and straightforward answer. The question is about the existence, so one valid example is indeed enough. – Kamil Maciorowski 5 hours ago
    
Good example, producing an example is sometimes the easiest way to prove this kind of thing. $e^x$ would also work, obviously. – EJoshuaS 5 hours ago

If you postulate a solution to $y=y'$ of the form $g(x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_kx^k$, by the equality of the power series on both sides of the equality one gets $$ a_{k+1}=(k+1)a_k,$$and then one deduces that $$a_k=\frac{a_0}{k!},\ \ \ \ k=1,2,\ldots.$$So $$y(x)=a_0\,\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{x^k}{k!}.$$One can then focus on the case where $a_0=1$, say $g(x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{x^k}{k!}$. Define $e=g(1)$. Using the series one can show that $$ g(x+y)=g(x)g(y).$$ It follows that $$\tag{1}g(x)=e^x$$ for $x$ rational. As $g$ is continuous (infinitely differentiable, even), it has to be $e^x=g(x)$ for irrational $x$, too. Thus $$ y(x)=a_0\,e^x. $$

share|cite|improve this answer
    
Possibly a new learner needs the recurrence relationship on a[k] explicitly written out to see why a[k]=1/k! follows from the assumption that the function being expanded is its own derivative. Similarly, for exposition I'd write f(x)=... instead of exp(x). The danger I suppose, is that then you'd just be doing a bunch of future visitors homework for them as they could copy/paste the entirety and turn it in. – Paul 10 hours ago
    
Yes, good points. – Martin Argerami 8 hours ago
    
This is an excellent answer! It doesn't require knowledge about $e$ or the natural logarithm, and even helps explain what they are. It just needs some power series machinery and the binomial theorem. +1 – dafinguzman 4 hours ago

An intuitive answer:

For smooth functions and "small" $h$, we have

$$f'(x)\approx\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}h.$$

Then $f'(x)=f(x)$ yields

$$f(x+h)\approx(1+h)f(x),$$ and $$f(x+2h)\approx(1+h)f(x+h)\approx(1+h)^2f(x),$$ $$\cdots$$ $$f(x+nh)\approx(1+h)^nf(x).$$

Now with $nh=1$,

$$f(x+1)\approx \left(1+\frac1n\right)^n f(x),$$ which should ring a bell.

share|cite|improve this answer
2  
I guess you want $f(x+y)=f(x)e^y$, not just the case $y=1$. On another note, I have some distrust of these "intuitive" reasonings because when I was studying physics in another life these things crept everywhere; thing is, whenever I would try to do the same, my results were always wrong. So I always got the feeling that one does these kind of computations because they already work by other reasons, but that it is extremely easy to stray from the "correct" path. – Martin Argerami 7 hours ago
    
@MartinArgerami: the answer covers any $nh$, but this is unimportant. The goal was to show the appearance of $e$. – Yves Daoust 6 hours ago
    
This can be seen as solving the differential equation $y' = y$ using Euler's method with $n$ steps of size $1/n$. – Daniel Schepler 40 mins ago

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.