# Generalized power rule for derivatives

Background

This background is not really necessary to answer my question, but I included it here to provide context.

This question has some programming aspects to it as well, but since my question is mainly about math, I decided to ask it here.

I'm trying to extend the implementation of automatic differentiation found here. This implementation, assuming I read it properly, does not work for functions of the form $F(x)=f(x)^{g(x)}$. I'm trying to modify it so that it does work for such functions.

Question

I'm trying to find a derivative for functions of the form $F(x)=f(x)^{g(x)}$. I specifically only care about the "normal" cases where $g(x)$ is an integral constant, or $f(x)$ is positive. Wikipedia has provided me with a "Generalized Power Rule":

$$(f^g)^\prime = f^g\left(f^\prime\frac{g}{f}+g^\prime\ln f\right)$$

The generalized rule however does not work for $f\leq 0$. In my implementation it is difficult to tell which of the two cases I'm working with, so I would rather not need to implement this generalized rule for the latter case, and the basic power rule for the former.

Is there a rule that works for both cases?

• How do you define $(-1.234)^{4.567}$? – Hagen von Eitzen Apr 28 '14 at 21:41
• I'm having trouble understanding your question. Note, however, that regarding the following remark "This rule however does not work for $f(x)≤0$", it's true that it doesn't work but it's not only because the formula doesn't hold, it's much more than, it doesn't work because if $f(x)\leq 0$, then $f^g$ isn't even defined. It doesn't make sense. – Git Gud Apr 28 '14 at 21:42
• @Hagen I don't understand the question. It looks like you have defined it there. That is one of the cases I don't care about. – Matt Apr 28 '14 at 21:42
• @I have not defined it, I just wrote down the expression. By writing "How do you define $\frac00$?" I wouldn't suddenly produce a definition of $\frac00$ either. – Hagen von Eitzen Apr 28 '14 at 21:43
• @Hagen Well, I'm talking about derivatives, so if you have defined $f(x)=-1.234$ and $g(x)=4.567$ where $F(x)=f^g$ then $F^\prime(x)=0$ – Matt Apr 28 '14 at 21:45

I think the problem here is stemming from confusion of the logarithm rule $$\ln a^r=r\ln a$$ This is only valid if we have $a>0$. Otherwise it does not hold. For example, $\ln((-1)^2)=\ln 1=0$ whereas $2\ln(-1)$ is not defined over the reals.

Instead, we can write $$\ln a^r=r\ln |a|,\;\;\;a^r>0$$ So in your case, let $y=x^2$. Then $\ln y=2\ln|x|$ so $$\frac{y'}{y}={2\over x}\implies y'=\frac{2y}{x}=2x$$ as desired. This holds for all $x\ne 0$.

In general, let $y=f(x)^{g(x)}$ and suppose that $f(x)^{g(x)}>0$ is defined and positive for all relevant $x$. Then we have $$\ln y=g(x)\ln |f(x)|,\;\;\;\frac{y'}{y}=g'\ln|f(x)|+g\frac{f'}{f}$$ so that

$$(f^g)'=f^g\left(g'\ln|f|+f'\frac{g}{f}\right)$$ We must have $f(x)\ne 0$ as expected.

NOTE: If a function satisfies the requirement that $f^g\ge 0$ for all $x$ in the domain, then at an anomalous point where f(x)=0 (such as the origin on the parabola $y=x^2$) the derivative there must be $0$ because it will be a minimum of the function (assuming it is differentiable at all).

• $a^r$ is not defined if e.g. $a = -1$ and $r=\frac{1}{2}$. Since undefined functions generally don't have derivatives, how does that help? – fgp Apr 28 '14 at 22:13
• @fgp I specified that $a^r>0$ was the necessary assumption. That means it is defined and strictly positive. – user142299 Apr 28 '14 at 22:18
• I also said "suppose $f^g>0$" in the middle of the post. Thanks though, edited accordingly. And I don't think undefined functions ever have derivatives... :) – user142299 Apr 28 '14 at 22:19
• What does $a^r > 0$ mean? What's your definition of $a^r$, if not $a^r = e^{r\ln a}$, which of course presumes that $a > 0$? – fgp Apr 28 '14 at 22:38
• Let $a<0$. Then $a^2$ does not mean zilch. It means $a^2$. Or again, $$(a^2)^a$$ is well-defined. We cannot simplify it to $a^{2a}$, but if we use absolute values judiciously we can still apply logarithmic differentiation as I have explained in the post. – user142299 Apr 28 '14 at 23:12

You have two conflicting goals here. If $y$ is arbitrary, then $x^y$ only makes sense for positive $x$. Imagine, for example, that $y = \frac{1}{2}$. Then $x^y = \sqrt{x}$ - what does that mean for negative $x$? Note that switching to complex numbers doesn't help much - negative numbers do have square roots then, but those are non-unique, and what's worse, the number of solutions is hightly dependent on $y$! E.g., $y^n = x$ has $n$ solutions in $\mathbb{C}$ - which is $x^\frac{1}{n}$ supposed to be?

So you'll have to distinguish two cases. One is $f(x)^{g(x)}$ for positive $f$, and the other is $f(x)^k$ for constants $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ (i.e., no fractional exponents). You could generalize the second case to $f(x)^{g(x)}$ for functions $g$ which take only integral values, but since such functions are either constant or non-continuous, that case isn't really interesting for purposes of differentiation I think.

BTW, a far more interesting (and maybe solvable!) question is how to deal with non-negative $f$, which nevertheless may take the value zero. $f(x)^{g(x)}$ is perfectly well-defined for those, but you'll still run into problems with the logarithm. Now, in some cases these problems are due to the fact that the derivative does, in fact, not exists at these points. But not in al cases! For example, $f(x) = x^2$ has derivative $0$ at $x=0$. The reason is, basically, that since $g$ is constant in this case, then $g' ln f$ doesn't matter, because $g' = 0$, and similarly for $f'\frac{g}{f}$. But you can't just cancel things that way in all cases - that will produce wrong answers sometimes, because it actually depends on how fast things go to zero respectively infinity.

You might ask, then, why the non-uniqueness mentioned above doesn't prevent us from sensibly defining $\sqrt[x]{x}$ - after all, $y^n = x$ has two solutions for positive $x$ even in \mathbb{R}$. The reason is twofold 1. The number of solutions doesn't explode as badly. We have one solution of$y^n = x$for odd$n$, and two for even$n$. 2. There's an order on$\mathbb{R}$, which makes the definition of$\sqrt[n]{x}$as the (unique!) positive solution of$y^n = x$quite natural. The effect of (1) and (2) is, for example, that while it's not true that$\sqrt[n]{x^n} = x$, we do get at least that$\sqrt[n]{x^n} = |x|$. Trying to do the same over the complex numbers fails horribly. We could attempt to define$\sqrt[n]{x}$as the solution of$y^n =x$with the smallest angle (assuming we agree to measure angles counter-clockwise from the real axis). But then an$n$-th root always has an angle smaller than$\frac{2\pi}{n}$, so$\sqrt[n]{x^n}$and$x$would have very little in common except that their$n$-th power is$x^n$. • Aren't square roots already non-unique? i.e.$\sqrt{4}=\pm 2$? – Matt Apr 28 '14 at 21:55 • @Matt No$\sqrt 4=+2$. But the equation$x^2=4$has two solutions,$\pm\sqrt 4$(i.e.$\pm 2$) – Hagen von Eitzen Apr 28 '14 at 21:58 • @Hagen Is that a useful distinction? What is the application of square root if not solving equations? Also, how is that different from the case outlined here, the way it is worded now is "E.g.,$y^n=x$has$n$solutions in$\mathbb C$" (I'm pointing out the word "solutions" here) – Matt Apr 28 '14 at 22:06 • @Matt I've added an explanation of why non-unique roots pose less of a problem in$\mathbb{R}$compared to$\mathbb{C}$. – fgp Apr 28 '14 at 22:09 • @Matt I've also added a section about the fact that not strictly positive$f$already cause problems, even though there are no definedness issues there! I'd concentrate on those - unless you can find a way around these, using the generalized power law will cause trouble if applied to very simply expressions like$x^2\$, if the result is evaluated at zero. – fgp Apr 28 '14 at 22:31