Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am trying to construct the exponential function on $\mathbb R$ by first finding all functions $f$ such that $f = f'$ (which should be all the constant multiples of $\exp$), then characterizing $\exp$ by the initial condition $f(0) = 1$.

I intend to use only the definitions and properties of derivatives and integrals, and the fundamental theorem(s) of calculus; in particular, I am trying to avoid Taylor series and/or the notion of uniform convergence. Of course, these restrictions are by no means precise, and I really don't know if it's possible to come up with a reasonably "simple" construction using only this set of tools, but I figured I'd give it a try.

So far I've only managed to prove uniqueness in the sense that if $f = f'$ and $c \in \mathbb R$, then $f$ is uniquely determined by $f(c)$. With this comes the corollary that if $f(c) = 0$ for any $c \in \mathbb R$, then $f = 0$. Existence seems pretty difficult to get to without any of the heavy machinery.

Here is the proof of uniqueness as described above:

Lemma. If $f = f'$, $g = g'$, and $c \in \mathbb R$, then $f + c \cdot g = f' + c \cdot g' = f' + (c \cdot g)' = (f + c \cdot g)'$.

Lemma. If $f = f'$ and $f(c) = 0$ for some $c \in \mathbb R$, then $f(x) = 0$ for all $x \leq c$. (I had trouble proving it for $x > c$.)

Proof. By the FTC, we have $\int_a^b f = f(b) - f(a)$. If $f(x) > 0$ for $c - \varepsilon \leq x \leq c$, then $\int_{c - \varepsilon}^c f > 0$, but $f(c) - f(c - \varepsilon) < 0$, a contradiction. Similar contradiction for $f(x) < 0$.

Theorem. If $f = f'$, $g = g'$, and $f(c) = g(c)$ for some $c \in \mathbb R$, then $f = g$.

Proof. Suppose $f(d) \neq g(d)$ for some $d \in \mathbb R$. WLOG, assume $g(d) \neq 0$. If $d < c$, then $(f - g)(d) \neq 0 = (f - g)(c)$; if $c < d$, then $$\left( f - \frac{f(d)}{g(d)} \cdot g \right)(c) \neq 0 = \left( f - \frac{f(d)}{g(d)} \cdot g \right)(d).$$ In any case, we contradict the second lemma.

Corollary. If $f = f'$ and $f(c) = 0$ for some $c \in \mathbb R$, then $f = 0$.

Proof. $0 = 0'$.

Now I want to prove the existence of $f$ for any initial condition $f(x) = y$, but I don't know how.

share|improve this question
1  
Show that Euler's method converges. –  Qiaochu Yuan Jun 20 '12 at 12:06
    
It is a differential equations, and existence is something related to infinite-dimensional spaces. You need some tool from analysis, like Ascoli-Arzelà or some fixed-point theorem. –  Siminore Jun 20 '12 at 12:06
add comment

1 Answer

Supoose $u$ and $v$ are functions so that $u'=u$, $v' = v$ and so $u(0)=v(0) = 1$. Put $\Phi(t) = u(t)v(-t)$ for $t\in\mathbb{R}$.

$$\Phi'(t) = u'(t)v(-t) - u(t)v'(-t) = u(t)v(-t) - u(t)v(-t) = 0.$$

The function $\Phi$ is constant. Since $\Phi(0) = 1$, $u(t)v(-t) = 1$ for all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$.

We can apply this result to $v$ and $v$ to get $$v(-t) = {1\over v(t)},\qquad t\in\mathbb{R}.$$ We conclude that $u(t)/v(t) = 1$ for $t\in\mathbb{R}$, so $u = v$.

Here is one way to get existence.

Define $l(x) = \int_1^x{dt\over t}$, for $x > 0$. This function is continuous and differentiable on $(0,\infty)$.

Observe that $$l(xy) = \int_1^{xy} {dt\over t} = \int_1^x {dt\over t} + \int_x^{xy}{dt\over t} = l(x) + \int_x^{xy} {dt\over t}.$$

Using a change of variable, we get $$\int_x^{xy} {dt\over t} = \int_1^y {x\,dt\over xt} = l(y).$$ We have $l(xy) = l(x)+l(y)$ for $x, y > 0$. We clearly have $l(1) = 0$. And it's not hard to show that $l(x^\alpha) = \alpha l(x)$ for $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ and $x > 0$.

By the fundamental theorem of calculus we know that $$l'(x) = 1/x$$ for $x > 0$. This function is strictly increasing and therefore 1-1 on $(0,\infty)$.

The inverse function to $l$ will satisfy the the initial value problem $u'(t) = u(t)$ and $u(0) = 1$. This gives existence.

You can use the properties of $l$ to see this is an exponential function. The base for this exponential is $l^{-1}(1)$.

share|improve this answer
    
This gives you uniqueness. –  ncmathsadist Jun 20 '12 at 13:03
    
This is explicitly what the OP doesn't need. –  mixedmath Jun 20 '12 at 13:06
    
Existence now added. This uses only the fundamental theorem of calculus, the chain rule and change of variable. –  ncmathsadist Jun 20 '12 at 13:20
    
I guess you forgot a '+' in $l(xy)=l(x)l(y)$ which should be $l(xy)=l(x)+l(y)$... =) –  bartgol Jun 20 '12 at 14:14
    
Fixed; thanks bartgol. –  ncmathsadist Jun 20 '12 at 14:31
add comment

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.