Highlights of this Chapter: we prove many foundational theorems about the derivative that one sees in an early calculus course. We see how to take the derivative of scalar multiples, sums, products, quotients and compositions. We also compute - directly from the definition - the derivative of exponential functions. This leads to an important discovery: there is a unique simplest, or natural exponential, whose derivative is itself. This is the origin of in Analysis.
From the definition, we move on to confirm the basic properties of the derivative well known and loved in introductory calculus courses. Most of these are straightforward, the only exception whose proof requires more thought than usually let on in Calculus I is the chain rule.
However before jumping in we prove one small oft-useful result often not mentioned in a calculus class, relating differentiability to continuity.
The converse is not true as we saw previously: the absolute value is continuous, but not differentiable.
Proposition 23.1 Let be differentiable at . Then is continuous at .
Proof. Since is differentiable at , we know the limit of the difference quotient is finite We also know that $ So, using the limit theorems we may multiply these together and get what we want. Precisely, let be any sequence with for all . Then we have
Thus so by the limit theorems we see . Since was arbitrary with this holds for any such sequence, we see that is continuous at using the sequence definition.
There is a little gap not explicitly spelled out at the end of the proof above, that we should fill in now (to assure ourselves this style of reasoning always works). We just proved that for sequences the property we want holds, but continuity requires this fact for all arbitrary sequences. How do we bridge this gap? Let be an arbitrary sequence: then we split into the subsequences and the subsequence of all terms . If either of these is finite, we can just truncate the original sequence at a point past which all terms are of one or the other: each of these has so we are done. In the case that both are infinite, we just use that we have separated our sequence into a union of two subsequences, each with the same limit! Thus the overall limit exists.
Differentiation and Field Operations
Here we prove the ‘derivative laws’ of Calculus I:
Theorem 23.1 Let be a function and . Then if is differentiable at a point so is , and
Proof. Let’s use the difference quotient with to change things up: Let be arbitrary, and we wish to compute the limit By the limit laws we can pull out the constant , and the remainder converges to , as is assumed to be differentiable at .
Because this is true for all sequences with , the limit exists, and equals .
Exercise 23.1 Let be functions which are both differentiable at a point . Then is also differentiable at , and
Theorem 23.2 (The Product Rule) Let be functions which are both differentiable at a point . Then is differentiable at and
Proof. Let be differentiable at , and choose an arbitrary sequence . Then we wish to compute
To the numerator we add and regroup with algebra:
Using the limit laws, we can take each of these limits individually so long as they exist (which we will show they do). But even more, note that the first term has a common factor of in the numerator that can be factored out, and the second a common factor of . Thus, by the limit laws, we see
Because is differentiable at , its continuous at , and so we know . The other two limits above converge to the derivatives and respectively. Thus, alltogether we find the resulting limit to be
As this was the result for an arbitrary sequence with , it must be the same for all sequences, meaning the limit exists, and
Exercise 23.2 (The Reciprocal Rule) Let be a function and be a point such that and is differentiable at . Then is also differentiable at and
Theorem 23.3 (The Quotient Rule) Let be a functions which are differentiable at a point and assume . Then the function is also differentiable at and
Exercise 23.3 Use the Reciprocal Rule and Product Rule to prove the quotient rule.
The Chain Rule
Theorem 23.4 (The Chain Rule) If is differentiable at and is differentiable at then the composition is differentiable at , with
Proof (Wish this Worked!). We are taking the derivative at , so let wtih be arbitrary. Then the limit defining is
We multiply the numerator and denominator of this fraction by $ and regroup:
Because is continuous at , we know , and because is differentiable at we recognize the first term here as the limit defining at ! Since the second term is the limit defining the derivative of , both of these exist by our assumptions, and so by the limit theorems we can compute
Unfortunately, this proof fails at one crucial step! Wile we do know that (in the definition of , we only choose sequences with ) we do not know that the other denominator is nonzero.
If this problem could only happen finitely many times it would be no trouble - we could just truncate the beginning of our sequence and rest assured we had not affected the value of the limit. But functions - even differentiable functions - can be pretty wild. The function (from Example 22.3) ends up equaling zero infinitely often in any neighborhood of zero! So such things are a real concern.
Happily the fix - while tedious - is straightforward. It’s given below.
Exercise 23.4 We define the auxiliary function as follows:
This function equals our problematic difference quotient most of the time, but equals the quantity we want it to be when the denominator is zero.
Prove that is continuous at and we may use in place of the difference quotient in our computation: that for all , the following equality holds:
Given this, the original proof is rescued:
Proof. We are taking the derivative at , so let with be arbitrary. Then the limit defining is (by the exercise)
Because is continuous at and we know . And, as is differentiable at we know the limit of the difference quotient exists. Thus, by the limit laws we can separate them and
Exponentials and Logs
In this section we look at how to find derivatives of functions which are defined not explicitly, but by functional equations. We will take the exponential as our example case; on the final project you will analyze the trigonometric functions this way.
Proposition 23.2 Let be an exponential function. Then is differentiable on the entire real line, and
First we show that this formula holds so long as is actually differentiable at zero. Thus, differentiability at a single point is enough to ensure differentiability everywhere and fully determine the formula!
Proof. Let , and . Then we compute by the following limit:
Using the property of exponentials and the limit laws, we can factor an out of the entire numerator:
But, so the limit here is actually the *derivative of at zero$!
Next, we tackle the slightly more subtle problem of showing that is in fact differentiable at zero. This is tricky because all we have assumed is that is continuous and satisfies the law of exponents: how are we going to pull differentiability out of this? The trick is two parts (1) show the right and left hand limits defining the derivative exist, and (2) show they’re equal.
In fact, is a known number, its the natural log of (Cite where we’ll prove this later)
Proof. STEP 1: Show that the left and right hand limits defining the derivative exist: is convex (Exercise 15.3) so the difference quotient is monotone increasing (Proposition 13.1), and so the limit exists (as a sup) and exists (as an inf), Corollary 22.1.
STEP2: Now that we know each of these limits exist, let’s show they are equal using the definition:
To compute the lower limit, we can choose any sequence approaching from below: let be a positive sequence with , then will do:
And by Exercise 15.2 we see . Thus
But, since is continuous (by definition) and (Exercise 15.2) the limit theorems imply Thus, But this last limit evaluates exactly to the limit from above since and . Stringing all of this together, we finally see Thus, by Theorem 17.2 we see that since both one sided limits exist and are equal the entire limit exists: is differentiable at .
This theorem tells us that the exponential functions have a remarkable property: they are their own derivatives, up to a constant multiple! While the functional equation alone did not provide us any means of distinguishing between different exponential functions, differentiation selects a single best, or simplest exponential out of the lot: the one where that constant multiple is just !
Definition 23.1 We write for the exponential function which has .
Note that by the chain rule we know such a thing exists so long as any exponential exists. If is any exponential then has derivative at !
Recalling our work with irrational exponents, we saw that if is an exponential with , then we may write for any (defined as a limit of rational exponents). So, our special exponential comes with a special number as its base.
Definition 23.2 We denote by the letter the base of the exponential : that is, , and Note that by definition we have
This is the origin of the number from the perspective of analysis! At this point in the story we do not know it’s value, but we now have a hint on how to get it: we just need to construct a means of computing the exponential function, and then plug in 1.
Logarithms
For every exponential, the inverse function is a logarithm (Theorem 15.2). So, be any exponential, and a logarithm. Then , and differentiating with the chain rule yields
The other side of the equality was , whose derivative is : thus
Thus, is a function that takes the positive number to : it divides by its input!
Proposition 23.3 If is a logarithm function, then for some positive (Indeed where is the inverse of )
This tells us that like the exponential function, there is a natural logarithm - the one where the arbitrary constant appearing during differentiation is equal to .
Definition 23.3 The natural logarithm is the logarithm function for which
Corollary 23.1 ( and are Inverses)
Proof. Since is an exponential, we know its derivative is some logarithm . But, differentiating yields
Since by definition this says that , which is the defining property of the natural logarithm. Thus .
The Power Rule
Perhaps the most memorable fact from Calculus I is the power rule, that . In this short section, we prove the power level at various levels of generality, starting with natural number exponents and proceeding to arbitrary real exponents.
Proposition 23.4 (The Power Rule: Natural Number Exponents) If is a natural number, is differentiable at all real numbers and
Proof. This is directly proved via induction on , starting from the base case , which holds as if and ,
Now, assume and consider . Using the product rule, we compute the derivative of
Exercise 23.5 (The Power Rule: Integer Exponents) Let and consider the function (which is defined as when ). Then is differentiable at all and
Using this, we can extend what we know to rational exponents:
Proposition 23.5 (The Power Rule: Rational Exponents) Let be any rational number and . Then is differentiable for all and
Proof. Let where without loss of generality and (as if we are in the integer exponent case). Then let , and note that . Then we can differentiate both sides of this inequality:
Equating these gives , and solving for :
Using that we can simplify the right hand side further:
This exponent simplifies as expected, yielding
Now that we know the power rule for all rational exponents, it is time to consider arbitrary real exponents, recalling that we define as a limit of rational exponents.
Theorem 23.5 ( The General Power Rule) If and . Then is differentiable for all , and
Exercise 23.6 Recall the definition of for irrational is for a sequence of rational numbers converging to . Use this definition to attempt a proof of the general power rule, by computing
In your proof, you will end up getting stuck at a point where you need to interchange two limits: point out where this happens, and then show that if you are justified in interchanging the limits, that the generalized power rule holds.
Alternatively, we can give a complete proof of the power rule using exponentials and logarithms.
Proof. Let be the natural exponential, and be the natural log. Then , and so . Using the property of logarithms and powers (Corollary 15.2) this simplifies
By the chain rule,
But, recalling that this simplifies to