13
$\begingroup$

I have tried to find a proof of the binomial theorem for any power, but I am finding it difficult. One can obviously prove the integer index case using induction, but all of the approaches for ANY power seem to involve calculus usually the Maclaurin series. My point is that surely as the result $$\frac{d}{dx}(x^n)=nx^{n-1}$$ relies on the binomial theorem when taking the limit, this means that any attempt to prove the binomial theorem using calculus is circular. Is there a proof without calculus for ANY power?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Wait, ANY power, or just rational powers? $\endgroup$
    – graydad
    Nov 7, 2014 at 18:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's not circular and doesn't rely on the binomial theorem. By definition, $x^n=e^{n\ln x}$, so the derivative is $n/x\cdot e^{n\ln x}=nx^{n-1}$. $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2014 at 18:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That result doesn't rely on the non-integer binomial theorem. When $n$ is rational, you can prove it via implicit differentiation; for arbitrary real $n$, you can prove it by writing $x^n = e^{n \log x}$ and applying the chain rule. $\endgroup$
    – Micah
    Nov 7, 2014 at 18:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @graydad I don't think it would matter as you can get any number arbitrarily close to a real number. $\endgroup$
    – Jem Bishop
    Nov 7, 2014 at 18:44
  • $\begingroup$ @user2345215 How do you define $e,$ for a start? If you go through something like the limit of $(1+x)^{1/x}$ at the origin or something similar, how do you attack this without having to do some series expansion; and how do you do this without using calculus or the binomial theorem? If some other way, how? I'm curious also how you would otherwise first define the exponential and the log functions, and prove their derivatives, using only elementary means (that is, without depending on calculus; and the binomial theorem in this case). $\endgroup$
    – Allawonder
    May 14, 2019 at 7:51

4 Answers 4

10
$\begingroup$

Suppose $\alpha\ge1$. Using Bernoulli's Inequality (which can be proven by induction for integer exponents, and easily extended for rational exponents, then extended by continuity for real exponents), we have for $|h|$ small enough so that $\frac{\alpha|h|}{x}\lt1$, $$ \begin{align} \frac{(x+h)^\alpha-x^\alpha}{h} &=x^\alpha\frac{\left(1+\frac{h}{x}\right)^\alpha-1}{h}\\ &\ge x^\alpha\frac{\left(1+\frac{\alpha h}{x}\right)-1}{h}\\[12pt] &=\alpha x^{\alpha-1}\tag{1} \end{align} $$ Furthermore, for $|h|$ small enough so that $0\lt\frac{\alpha|h|}{x-|h|}\lt1$, $$ \begin{align} \frac{(x+h)^\alpha-x^\alpha}{h} &=x^\alpha\frac{\left(1+\frac{h}{x}\right)^\alpha-1}{h}\\ &=x^\alpha\frac{\frac1{\left(1-\frac{h}{x+h}\right)^\alpha}-1}{h}\\ &\le x^\alpha\frac{\frac1{\left(1-\frac{\alpha h}{x+h}\right)}-1}{h}\\[9pt] &=\alpha x^{\alpha-1}\frac{x}{x-(\alpha-1)h}\tag{2} \end{align} $$ Thus, using the Squeeze Theorem with $(1)$ and $(2)$, we have $$ \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}x^\alpha=\lim_{h\to0}\frac{(x+h)^\alpha-x^\alpha}{h}=\alpha x^{\alpha-1}\tag{3} $$


For $\alpha\lt1$, we have from $(3)$ that $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}x^2=2x$. Then, because $2-\alpha\gt1$, the product rule says $$ \begin{align} 2x &=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}x^{(2-\alpha)+\alpha}\\ &=x^{2-\alpha}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}x^\alpha+(2-\alpha)x^{1-\alpha}x^\alpha\tag{4} \end{align} $$ Finally, $(4)$ and algebra say that $$ \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}x^\alpha=\alpha x^{\alpha-1}\tag{5} $$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you this is the answer I was looking for $\endgroup$
    – Jem Bishop
    Nov 7, 2014 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ Glad it helps. I figured there had to be a way to show this using Bernoulli's Inequality, so I just plugged away until it happened. $\endgroup$
    – robjohn
    Nov 7, 2014 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ @robjohn Where do I find the Bernouli inequality? I mean, in which Math textbooks? Real Analysis? $\endgroup$
    – HERO
    Nov 25, 2019 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ @AmandaMacaurenni: aside from the links I provided in the answer, there is Wikipedia. A calculus or real analysis book might cover it. $\endgroup$
    – robjohn
    Nov 25, 2019 at 10:14
9
$\begingroup$

You can deduce the series expansion of $(1+x)^{1/2}$ without calculus.

Suppose $(1+x)^{1/2} = \sum_{r=0}^\infty a_rx^r$. Squaring both sides gives

$1 + x = a_0^2 + 2a_0a_1x + (a_1^2 + 2a_2a_0)x^2+\cdots$

Now equating coefficients of $x^r$ gives:

  • $a_0^2=1$ (and we choose $a_0=+1$ to get the positive branch of $(1+x)^{1/2}$)

  • $2a_0a_1 = 1$, so $a_1 = \frac12$

  • $a_1^2 + 2a_2a_0 = 0$, so $a_2 = -\dfrac{a_1^2}{2a_0} = -\frac18$

and so on.

In theory, you can use the same technique to deduce the series expansion of $(a+x)^{1/q}$ for any positive integer $q$. And from there you can raise the series to the $p$th power to get $(1+x)^{p/q}$ for any integers $p,q$. But it rapidly becomes unmanageable as $q$ gets larger.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This is what I was thinking but I couldn't arrive at a general proof as I found difficulty grouping the coefficients. $\endgroup$
    – Jem Bishop
    Nov 7, 2014 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Jem: That's why everybody uses calculus instead! $\endgroup$
    – TonyK
    Nov 7, 2014 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ I like this approach. In general one would have a recurrence relation for the general coefficient, with a specified initial condition. If one can prove that the solution of this general recurrence relation is given by the binomial coefficients, then one is done. And indeed, one can just do that by substitution. Thus, this can work in practice as a way to verify the theorem in an entirely elementary manner, that is, in the manner in which OP wanted. Thus, although you yourself do not see this, nevertheless I support this answer. $\endgroup$
    – Allawonder
    May 15, 2019 at 10:31
  • $\begingroup$ PS. The only possible criticism remaining may be that this approach assumes that $(1+x)^m$ can be expanded in the series $$\sum_0^\infty a_rx^r,$$ so that it is only half a proof of the binomial theorem, which claims that $(1+x)^m$ may be expanded in a power series at $0$, first, before giving the form of the series. $\endgroup$
    – Allawonder
    May 15, 2019 at 10:40
2
$\begingroup$

The fact that $\frac{d}{dx} x^n = nx^{n-1}$ for any $n \in \mathbb{R}$ does not rely on the binomial theorem. One can instead use the chain rule as follows:

Consider that $$\frac{d}{dx} \ln\left(x^n\right) = \frac{1}{x^n}\frac{d}{dx}x^n$$

by the Chain Rule. However,

$$\frac{d}{dx} \ln(x^n) = n \frac{d}{dx} \ln(x) = \frac{n}{x}$$ Thus $\frac{d}{dx} x^n = \frac{n}{x} x^n = nx^{n-1}$.

I know that this does not address the problem of proving the binomial theorem, but hopefully this helps with questions of possible circularity.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ When deriving something as basic as the derivative of $x^n$, using logs and exponentials seems a bit high-powered. Was this basic derivative used at some point in the proof of the derivative of log or exp? $\endgroup$
    – robjohn
    Nov 7, 2014 at 18:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You are hiding the exponential definition of $x^n$ inside $\ln(x^n) = n\ln x$. This doesn't answer the question and has already been said twice in the comments. $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2014 at 18:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $\ln$ and $\exp$ is high-powered, the derivative of $x^n$ for real $n$ is intrinsically high-powered because $x^n = \exp(n \ln x)$ by definition. $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2014 at 18:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I can't think of a way to find the value of e without the binomial theorem though. $\endgroup$
    – Jem Bishop
    Nov 7, 2014 at 18:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You don't need to know the value of $e$ to use the $\exp$ function, all its relevant properties can be derived from its inverse relationship to $\ln$. $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2014 at 21:49
0
$\begingroup$

If you're still interested in this type of stuff (as I recently found myself), then there is just the type of proof I think you wanted provided here.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .