A first definition of exponential and logarithmic functions
Posted on September 19, 2022
(Last modified on November 9, 2022)
| 9 minutes
|
|
1 comment
Motivation from compound interest
Increase the number of times that the interest is compounded each year (n), so
as to increase the final amount of money (A)
A=P(1+nr)nt.
t and r are the number of years and the interest rate per annum.
As n becomes large, we can approximate the amount by
A=Pert.
The value of A in the above formula is the amount compounded continuously.
Questions
What is (the definition of) the constant e?
In practice, r is a rational number. (i.e. r∈Q) What if r is
irrational? Then we would run into irrational indices.
Goal
To store the technical details somewhere on the web.
To give a logical introduction to the concept of two elementary functions:
exponential function and logarithms.
To fill the gap between rational and irrational indices.
Raison d’être
In exam-oriented secondary education, students are required to make calculations
using their scientific calculators. It would be convenient, for school
teachers, to infer from the law of indices on Q to their counterpart on R,
and to ask students to write the calculator’s output (say, for 2π). Math
teachers aren’t math major (like me), so some of them might not even know how
these two elementary functions are defined and developed. Their job is to pass
the classic formulae to students. As a result, students resort to rote or
muscle memory. The former is prone to mistakes, especially under exam stress.
This leads to low achievement.
This article aims to fill up the gap for interested students. In the first few
big proofs, I only use integer exponents, so that knowing the basic definition
of indices would suffice.
Facts needed
Product rule of limits: lim(A⋅B)=(limA)(limB), provided both limits on the RHS exist.
Binomial Theorem:
(a+b)n=k=0∑n(kn)an−kbk.
Geometric sum formula (finite version):
i=0∑nari=1−ra(1−rn+1),r=1.
Limit exists implies boundedness: if limn→+∞an exists, then
there exists a constant M>0 such that for all n, ∣an∣≤M.
Monotone Convergence Theorem and monotonicity of limits:
∀n:an≤bn⟹nliman≤nlimbn.
Recall the definition of exponential function
For any real number s, the limit limn→+∞(1+s/n)n exists, and
it’s denoted by es, or exp(s).
Proof:
We’ll show that the sequence with the general term (1+s/n)n is bounded,
then strictly increasing for s>0, so that we can apply the Monotone
Convergence Theorem to establish the existence of the desired limit for s>0.
After that, we’ll use the quotient rule for limits to finish.
Boundedness
The main idea is that factorial function k↦k! is much greater than the
exponential function (with a fixed base m) k↦mk.
Our definition of exponential function is a limit of a binomial,
which can be expanded into a sum involving binomial coefficients,
which is a fraction with k! as the denominator.
by bounding 1/k! above by a term from a well-chosen exponential function
(with a base strictly smaller than 1), we can apply the geometric sum formula
(for finitely many terms, then discard the negative term in the numerator) to
set up an upper bound independent of n.
The above argument only works for ∣s∣<2. For larger
∣s∣, we need to change ‘2’ to a larger integer M, so that the
geometric sum formula (for finitely many terms) can be applied. We choose this
M∈N so that 2≤∣s∣<M. It’s clear that M≥3.
For the case ∣s∣≥2, in the sum (4), we discard the fraction on
the right (by bounding it above by 1), and we divide the sum into two parts
1+∣s∣+k=2∑M−1k!∣s∣k+k=M∑nk!∣s∣k.
We’ll only focus on the last term (the “tail”).
It took me a while to work out the tedious details.
This shows the desired limit in the beginning of this subsection. Apply this
together with the case that s>0 (that we’ve just proved) and the quotient rule
for limits to see that
n→+∞lim(1−ns)n=es1.
Exercise: try to find a gap in the above argument.
From the above proof, we have the identity es⋅e−s=1.
Remark: Here the condition that s>0 is needed. You may experiment with
large negative numbers for s (say s=−100) and a short array of large
consecutive values of n (say n∈{61,62,…,80}) to see
the oscillation of the sequence ((1+s/n)n)n.
To see that the exponential function exp:R→R+ is strictly increasing,
we apply the above multiplicative formula. Suppose that s<t, and we want to
compare es with et. We have et=es⋅et−s. Once we can show
that et−s>1, then we’re done. Note that the exponent t−s>0, so from the
first four lines in the subsection Boundedness, we see that
et−s≥1+(t−s)>1 (only the first two terms in the fourth line are taken).
Thus, the exponential function is bijective, and it has an inverse function,
which is called the natural log and is denoted by ln. It’s obvious that
es=a⟺s=ln(a). Two useful forms of this “⟺” statement:
ln(es)(=ln(a))=s (i.e. es↦lns)
eln(a)(=es)=a (i.e. ln(a)↦expa).
Corollary
ln(ab)=ln(a)+ln(b)
Proof: write a=es and b=et. Then ab=es+t. Take log on both
sides to see that ln(ab)=s+t=ln(a)+ln(b).
General definition of exponents
Let a>0 and s∈R. We define as:=esln(a). It’s read as
“a to the power s”.
Rediscovery of law of indices
Let a>0, and s,t∈R.
Zero power: a0=1
a0=e0ln(a)=e0=1
The last equality is from our definition of the exponential function with s=0,
so that the expression on the right of the lim symbol becomes the constant
1.
Exercise: What is a1?
Negative power: a−s=1/as
Recall: at the end of the
subsection Negative Exponents, we have the identity
et⋅e−t=1, so e−t=(et)−1=1/et for all
t∈R. Put t=sln(a), which is the exponent on the RHS of
as=esln(a) to see that a−s=1/esln(a)=1/as.
Let a,b>0 and s∈R such that as=b. A textbook defines logab
to be s. Using our definition of exponents, we can easily retreive the change
of base formula
esln(a)=assln(a)s=b=ln(b)=ln(a)ln(b).
Here’re two conventions.
base a
loga written as
name
e
ln
natural log
10
log
common log
I’ll left the derivation of remaining laws as an exercise,
so that you can practice your understanding of the above definitions and
formulae.
Try new service. Here’s a proof for Minikowski’s inequality. Suppose that a,b>0. If a=b, we have the equality, so WLOG, we assume that a>b.
We want to show that (a−b)(n−1)/n≤∑k=0n−1n(akn(bn−1−k. We make a change of variables:
The above inequality becomes hn−1≤(∑k=0n−1n(a+hkn(an−1−k)n. On RHS, consider the term with k=n−1:
Here we use the strict monotonicity of the function x↦xn on [0,∞). We have strict inequalities since we assume that a>b, so h>0. Hence,