15 Transcendental Functions
Highlights of this Chapter: we introduce the idea of defining functions by a Functional Equation specifying how a function should behave instead of specifying how to compute it. Following this approach, we give rigorous definitions for exponentials logarithms and trigonometric functions, and investigate some of their consequences. With these definitions in hand, we are able to define the field of Elementary Functions, familiar from calculus and the sciences.
At the heart of real analysis is the study of functions: not only the study of their properties (continuity being a prime example) but also their very definition. Exponentials, trigonometric functions and logarithms are all examples of transcendental functions or things that transcend algebra: they are not built from a finite composition of the field operations and instead are calculated as the result of infinite processes.
In this chapter we will not focus on how to compute such functions, but rather on the more pressing question of how to even define them: if all we have available to us are the axioms of a complete ordered field how do we rigorously capture aspects of circles in the plane (trigonometry) or continuous growth (exponentials)? The key is the idea of a functional equation: something that will let us define a function by how it behaves, instead of by directly specifying a formula to compute it.
15.1 Functional Equations
Recall the great shift in our collective conception of a function that occurred around the time of Euler, where mathematicians stopped insisting that functions were given by formulas and rather began to welcome rather arbitrary rules, so long as they assigned a unique output to each input. This is accompanied by a conceptual leap, removing the focus from how to compute a function and turning towards what is the function doing?
This is perhaps easiest to illustrate by example, so we give two below for functions that we already know of from algebra: roots and linear functions.
15.1.1 Roots
How should one define the square root, to someone who has never seen it before? Perhaps as “the square root is a number that when multiplied by itself, gives the number you started with”. Such a description does a good job of telling us exactly what the square root does, and is worth trying to translate into formal mathematics.
In symbols, this means if
In general, we make the same definition, justified by the uniqueness result in Theorem 16.3.
Definition 15.1 Let
The utility of functional equations is that if we can take them as the definition of a particular function we are interested in, we know for sure that this function has the property we want: that’s all the definition specifies! The hard work them comes in figuring out how to actually compute the values of functions which are defined functionally.
15.1.2 Linear Functions
We know how to express linear functions already using the field axioms, as maps
This more abstract functional approach was first taken by Cauchy during the development of analysis, and so the resulting equation is called the Cauchy Functional Equation
Definition 15.2 (Cauchy’s Functional Equation for Linearity) A function
Such an abstract characterization has had a tremendous influence in mathematics: for example, think of the definition of a linear map in linear algebra.
15.1.3 Difficulties
Moving away from defining a function computationally, there are several potential issues that need to be confronted. First, how do we know that there even is a function satisfying our functional equation?
Example 15.1 (An impossible functional equation) Consider the functional equation
The second worry is to make sure the functional equation really is strict enough to capture what you want it to capture. One example is already presented by linearity: its easy to see that any linear function must be zero at
But, its even worse than this: while it seems that Cauchy’s equation captures exactly what we want from the idea of linearity (the ability to distribute over addition) it also has pathological solutions beyond
Example 15.2 (Pathological Solutions to Cauchy’s Functional Equation)
To avoid such pathological solutions one needs to impose extra conditions - and a hint at which conditions may help comes from the example above, which turns out to be continuous only at the point
Theorem 15.1 Any continuous solution to Cauchy’s functional equation is a function of the form
Exercise 15.1 Prove Theorem 15.1 by following the outline below:
- Define
, and prove that for all , using the functional equation. - Extend this to show that
using the functional equation, and then that for any . - Use continuity to show that for any
this implies that .
This is one critical way that analysis enters into the very definition of functions - if we specify what we want a function to do that often leaves room for pathological, discontinuous behavior. And, to get what we really want, we need to ask for our function to behave continuously. We see this time and again below, where we define exponentials logarithms and trigonometric functions all as the continuous solutions to various functional equations.
15.2 Exponentials
Definition 15.3 (The Law of Exponents) A function
We use this to give a functional definition of exponential functions.
Definition 15.4 An exponential function is a continuous nonzero function
Now that we have a formal definition, we can start seeing what properties exponential functions must have.
Example 15.3 If
Proof. Let
Exercise 15.2 Prove that if
Exercise 15.3 (Convexity of exponentials) Prove that exponential functions are convex (Definition 13.8): their secant lines lie above their graphs.
Proposition 15.1 Prove that if
Proof. We deal separately with two cases, for nonzero integers
Next, we see that
Putting these two cases together completes the argument, as for
This has a rather strong consequence for the values of an exponential function at the rational numbers, in terms of its value at a single point:
Definition 15.5 (The Base of an Exponential) If
Corollary 15.1 Let
Proof. Let
This is a pretty strong property: any two exponential functions that agree at 1 actually agree on the entire real line, since they agree at a dense set. In fact, this is true not just of
Exercise 15.4 (Exponentials that agree at a point) Prove that if
Hint: prove that
This work all tells us that if an exponential function exists at all then it is fully determined by its value at any point: phrased in terms of the value at
Exercise 15.5 Prove that if
15.3 Logarithms
Just like we defined an exponential function by what we want it to do, we will define a logarithm based on its desired properties, giving a functional equation. Logarithms were originally invented to speed up computation, by turning multiplication into addition.
Definition 15.6 (The Laws of Logarithms) We say a function
Like in the case of exponentials, we are right to worry that there may be many pathological, everywhere discontinuous solutions to this functional equation. To avoid these, we define logarithms to be the continuous solutions
Definition 15.7 (Logarithm) A function
Because of the similarity of the logarithm law to that of exponentials, its perhaps no surprise that with some induction we can fully understand the behavior of these functions on rational inputs:
Proposition 15.2 Let
Exercise 15.6 Prove Proposition 15.2 via the following steps:
- Prove that for any
we have inductively. - Prove that
. Use this to conclude that for all . Thus for all . - Prove that
for . - Put these together to see that for
, .
This gives an equality between two functions at every rational value. Because the functions are continuous (
Corollary 15.2 Let
This has a pretty incredible consequence:
Theorem 15.2 The inverse of an exponential function is a logarithm function!
Proof (Proof). Let
Thus, for the exponential
This makes it natural to try and define the base of a logarithm:
Definition 15.8 (Base of a Logarithm) If
Unlike for the exponential where the base was a value of the function (which then existed by definition), we do not know a priori that every logarithm takes the value
15.4 Trigonometric
The trigonometric functions are originally defined geometrically, but like the exponentials above, we will specify them by a functional equation - specifying how the functions behave instead of what they measure.
Trigonometric functions satisfy many functional equations - these are what we call trigonometric identities! And, as one is perhaps too familiar with from a trigonometry class, there are many many trigonometric identities! Here our goal is to pick some small set of identities to impose as the axioms for trigonometry, from which all other functional properties can be derived.
The natural candidates are the angle sum or difference identities:
Definition 15.9 (Angle Sum Identities) Two functions
Definition 15.10 (Angle Difference Identities) Two functions
In fact, either of these serves just fine, but for technical reasons (shortening some proofs a little bit) it’s easier to take the angle difference identities as our functional equations.
Definition 15.11 A pair of functions
This seems perhaps surprisingly non-restrictive: nowhere have we built in tha these functions are periodic, or differentiable, or anything else! Can all of trigonometry really be reduced to this simple rule and the imposition of continuity? Indeed it can! And this development will be the subject of the final project in this course. –>
15.5 Elementary Functions
The functions you are used to seeing in a calculus course, and in the sciences are called elementary functions, and include all the functions we have discussed so far in this course, as well as messy combinations like
While in the sciences people often non-rigorously think of the elementary functions as simply “those functions which have a formula” we should be more precise as mathematicians. After all, what is to stop us from giving a fancy name like
Definition 15.12 The elementary functions
- Constants
- Powers
and their inverses - Exponentials
and their inverses - Trigonometric functions
and their inverses
This list includes all the familiar functions; from the tangent
But this list, as written is not fully ‘minimal’: we can remove some functions from it without changing the class
Exercise 15.7 The function
Show the same is true for the roots
Thus, we can reduce without loss of generality the line “powers
But even further simplification is possible. As we continue to study the transcendental functions, we will learn a lot more about them from their functional definitions. Indeed, we will see that each of these picks out an essentially unique function:
- There is a unique exponential function up to scaling: if
and are any exponentials, then there exists a constant such that . - There is a unique logarithm function up to scaling: if
and are any logarithms, then there exists a constant such that . - There exists a unique pair of trigonometric functions up to scaling: if
and are two pairs of trigonometric functions, then there exists a constant such that .
Thus, since constant scaling of the argument is part of the ‘construction kit’ for elementary functions (
Definition 15.13 The elementary functions
- Constants
- The identity
- The exponential
and its inverse , - The trigonometric functions
and their inverses .
If we further allow ourselves to work with complex valued functions of a real argument (which is both mathematically convenient, and relevant to the sciences) even further simplification becomes possible: Euler’s formula relates the exponential to the sine and cosine
So we may derive formulas for
Thus, if complex constants are allowed instead of just real constants, the definition of elementary functions reduces even further:
Definition 15.14 The elementary functions
- Constants
- The identity
- The exponential
and its inverse ,
This shows, more than anything else (in my opinion) how the exponential function