5
$\begingroup$

I've been thinking about the following problem for a while:

(AFAIK) the 'exponential function', $e^x$ can be characterized as the unique solution to the following differential equation with initial conditions specified:

$f'(x) = f(x)$ , $f(0) = 1$.

Prior to learning this, I thought of $e^x$ in the following way:

I first thought of $e$ to be the supremum of the sequence $u_n =(1+ \frac{1}{n})^n$, and since $u_n$ can be shown to be monotone increasing and bounded above, this is the same as defining it to be $e = \lim_{n \to \infty} (1+\frac{1}{n})^n$

I then showed that via this characterization, we can also show that $e= lim_{h \to 0} (1+h)^{\frac{1}{h}}$, which allows us to show that the function $e^x$ has a nice property, namely, that its own derivative is itself, which immediately makes it $C^{\infty}$.

Using this, as well as the Lagrange form of the remainder for the Taylor polynomial, I was then able to show that $\displaystyle e^x = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac{x^i}{i!}$


I then wanted to try and show that the characterization of $e^x$ as the unique function that satisfies:

$f'(x) = f(x)$ , $f(0) = 1$.

and the characterization I previously thought about were equivalent.

So I started with showing that $f'(x) = f(x)$ , $f(0) = 1$ implied my previous characterization, as my previous characterization is a solution to $f'(x) = f(x)$ , $f(0) = 1$

I noted that as $f$ was defined at $0$, and that $f$ had a first derivative at $0$, it can be inferred that $f$ is continuous at $0$, and exists in some neighborhood, lets say $(-k,k)$ of $0$.

Now I also realized if $f$ is a solution to this differential equation, it is $C^{\infty}$, and all of its derivatives must exist in the neighborhood $(-k,k)$ of $0$.

Then I applied the Lagrange form of the remainder to this function to show that the error as this function is approximated with $\sum_{i=0}^n \frac{x^i}{i!}$ tends to $0$ as $n \to \infty$.

So, in $(-k,k)$, the function must be $e^x$, as $e^x$ can also be made arbitrarily close to $\sum_{i=0}^n \frac{x^i}{i!}$ given $n$ large enough.

Okay, so I understand that $f(x) = e^x$ in $(-k,k)$, and I realize that $\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac{x^i}{i!}$ has an interval of convergence of $\mathbb{R}$, where it is uniformly convergent, and so $f$ even has a smooth uniformly convergent continuation outside $(-k,k)$, which is also just $e^x$.

But this is what I am struggling to understand, why does $f$ need to be defined on all of $\mathbb{R}$, as in, why does $f$ need to actually be the same function as $e^x$, same domain and all?

Surely $f$ could be defined on any arbitrarily small interval $(-k,k)$ around zero, and still fulfill its defining differential equation, but not be defined outside of $(-k,k)$, so while within $(-k,k)$ it is $e^x$, it may not exist outside $(-k,k)$ as itself, but only as a smooth unique continuation of itself (namely, $e^x$).

Another problem I have related to this is when talking about solutions to the following differential equation (again with specified initial conditions):

$f''(x) = -kf(x)$, $f(0) = A$, $f'(0) = 0$, I realize that $f(x)$ is essentially the cosine function, and that this is in fact the characterizing equation of simple harmonic motion, which a pendulum approximates when it swings back and forth with small incline angle.

I could show this in a similar way, by talking about how $f$ is again $C^{\infty}$ and then showing that within whatever interval its defined in its equal to a function that is basically cosine, but now my question is, what makes us believe that $f(x)$, which can be thought of as the displacement of a particle doing simple harmonic motion, is defined outside a small open interval containing $t=0$? How can we model these particles with cosine in real life if you can't directly conclude all solutions to $f''(x) = -kf(x)$, $f(0) = A$ have to be defined themselves on all of $\mathbb{R}$ (and not as themselves on $(-k,k)$ and then as a unique smooth continuation (cosine) on $\mathbb{R} \setminus (-k,k)$).

I would really appreciate it if someone were to help me understand this better, and I am sorry if I have been unclear

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Not an answer, but the uniqueness can be proved as follows. Let $G(x)=\frac{f(x)}{e^x}$. Differentiate using the Quotient Rule. We find that $G'(x)=0$. So $G$ is constant, $f(x)=Ce^x$, and applying the initial condition $f(0)=1$ we find that $C=1$. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Apr 15 '16 at 14:54
1
$\begingroup$

If for some $a<0<b$ we have $f\colon(a,b)\to\Bbb R$ with $f'(x)=f(x)$ for all $x\in(a,b)$ and $f(0)=1$, note that for any fixed $c\in(a,b)$ with $f(c)\ne 0$, we can define $$g_c(x)=\frac{f(x+c)}{f(c)} $$ which gives us a function $g_c\colon (a-c,b-c)\to \Bbb R$ with $$g_c'(x)=\frac{f'(x+c)}{f(c)}=\frac{f(x+c)}{f(c)}=g_c(x)$$ for all $x\in(a-c,b-c)$. In particular, if $0\in(a-c,b-c)$ we have $g_c(0)=\frac{f(c)}{f(c)}=1$ and by uniqueness, $f(x)=g_c(x)$ for all $x\in(a,b)\cap(a-c,b-c)$. This allows us to glue the solutions together to a solution of the differential equation that is defined on $(a,b)\cup(a-c,b-c)$. As $f(c)\ne 0$ certainly holds for $c$ in some neighbourhood of $0$, we conclude that our solution can in fact be extended to all of $\Bbb R$.


Remark. By the way, we have shown in passing that $f(x+y)=g_y(x)f(y)=f(x)f(y) $ whenever $f(y)\ne 0$. It follows that the continuous function $h(x)=f(x)f(-x)$ can take on only the values $1$ and $0$. As $h$ is defined on all of $\Bbb R$, we conclude that $h(x)=1$ for all $x$ and so $f(x)\ne 0$ for all $x$ (in fact, $$ \tag1f(x)>0$$ per Intermediate Value Theorem) and so $$\tag2f(x+y)=f(x)f(y) $$ for all $x,y\in\Bbb R$. Finally, we have another important property of $f$, namely $$ \tag3f(x)\ge 1+x.$$ Indeed, by $(1)$ we have $f''(x)=f'(x)=f(x)>0$ so that $f$ is a convex function. Therefore it stays above each of its tangents, and $y=1+x$ is the tangent at $(0,f(0))$. It is remarkable how many properties about the exponential function can be shown by using only $(1)$, $(2)$, $(3)$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Reading your long post, I come to the conclusion that you have some working definition of $a^{b}$ for $a, b \in \mathbb{R}$ and $a > 0$ (that's why you are talking about limit $e = \lim_{h \to 0}(1 + h)^{1/h}$). Although a working definition of $a^{b}$ without using any knowledge of $e^{x}$ is hard, I will assume that you have already managed to solve this hard problem.

I am bit surprised as to why you want to limit your solution to the differential equation $y' = y, y(0) = 1$ in the interval $(-k, k)$. It is rather better to establish the following theorem:

Theorem: There is a unique function $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that $f'(x) = f(x), f(0) = 1$. Moreover any solution to the differential equation $$\frac{dy}{dx} = y$$ is given by $y(x) = y(0)f(x)$ where $f$ is the unique function mentioned earlier.

For a proof see this answer.

Further it is easy to show that the function $f$ satisfies $f(x + y) = f(x)f(y)$ for all $x, y$ and with some more effort we can show that $f(1) = \lim_{n \to \infty}(1 + (1/n))^{n}$. The part regarding $f(1)$ as a limit is done by defining another function $$g(x) = \lim_{n \to \infty}\left(1 + \frac{x}{n}\right)^{n}$$ and showing that $g'(x) = g(x), g(0) = 1$ so that $g$ is the same unique function $f$ mentioned in the theorem above. See this answer for more details.

The solution to $y'' = -ky$ where $k > 0$ is essentially based on theory of circular functions. It is easy to show that if $f$ is a function satisfying $f''(x) = -f(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$ then $$f(x) = f(0)\cos x + f'(0)\sin x$$ for all $x$. For a proof see later part of this blog post. The equation $y''= -ky$ is then solved by putting $t = \sqrt{k}x$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I treat $a^b$ for $a \in \mathbb{Q}$ , $a>0$ and positive $b \in \mathbb{R}$ as $sup\{a^x | 0<x<b , x\in \mathbb{Q} \}$, then if I want to define it for $a \in \mathbb{R}$ I define $a^b$ as $sup \{ sup\{y^x | 0<x<b , x\in \mathbb{Q} \} | 0<y<a , y \in \mathbb{Q} \}$ $\endgroup$ – porridgemathematics Apr 17 '16 at 16:17
  • $\begingroup$ But yes, I'm willfully ignoring a precise definition of $a^b$ where $a$ and $b$ are irrational numbers, although I understand a precise definition can be formulated using the fact that $\mathbb{R}$ is complete. My question was primarily concerned with if it was possible to start from $f'(x) = f(x), f(0)=1$ to $f(x) = e^x$ on $\mathbb{R}$ with no specification on $f(x)$'s domain. I understand that on $\mathbb{R}$ the only function with this property is $e^x$, and that on any interval upon which $f$ is defined, $f=e$. I presumed it would be a bit of a pedantic question before asking, but thanks $\endgroup$ – porridgemathematics Apr 17 '16 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ It appears that people are so used to $\sup, \inf$ that they try to use it everywhere. The definition you have given applies only when $a > 1$. If $0 < a < 1$ you need to use $\inf$ and not $\sup$. It is much better to use the limit definition. If $b_{n}$ is a sequence of rationals tending to $b$ and $a > 0$ then $a^{b} = \lim\limits_{n \to \infty}a^{b_{n}}$. $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Apr 18 '16 at 7:16
  • $\begingroup$ Yes you are right, inf is necessary when $ 0<a<1 $, i typed that up a bit too quickly and wasnt careful, but really my question assumed a working definition of exponentiation in the context of the reals and so im not quite sure why its even a relevant discussion in the context of the question $\endgroup$ – porridgemathematics Apr 18 '16 at 7:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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