Does this proof contain circular logic?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I am trying to prove that $e^x$ is a solution to $f'(x)=f(x)$, and there is a point at which I am concerned that there might be circular logic.



Here's what I've got so far:
$$f'(x)=f(x)$$
$$fracf'(x)f(x)=1$$
$$intfracf'(x)f(x)dx=x+c_0$$
Letting $y=f(x)$ gives
$$intfracdyy=x+c_0$$
Which gives $$ln|y|=x+c_0$$
$$f(x)=c_1e^x$$
QED



The bit I'm concerned about is $intfracdyy=ln|y|$.



Is there any proof of $$intfracdxx=ln|x|$$
which doesn't use $fracddxe^x=e^x$?



Edit: If it wasn't clear, I am asking if there is a way that one can prove that $$intfracdxx=ln|x|$$
without relying on the fact that $fracddxe^x=e^x$?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 5




    How do you define $e^x$? Some people define $ln(x) := int_1^x frac1t , dt, ; x>0$ and then define $e^x$ as its inverse. In that case, there is no circular reasoning.
    – Sobi
    1 hour ago











  • @Sobi which ever way makes my proof valid...?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Assuming you have defined $e = lim_n to infty (1+1/n)^n$, you could differentiate $ln(x)$ directly and appeal to this limit. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1341958/…
    – welshman500
    1 hour ago











  • @Sobi Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    @MarkViola If one first define $log$ from the integral and then $exp$ as its inverse function, then one can define $a^x=exp(xlog a)$; in the particular case of $a=e=exp(1)$, we get $e^x=exp(x)$. No need to have predefined general exponential functions.
    – egreg
    1 hour ago















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I am trying to prove that $e^x$ is a solution to $f'(x)=f(x)$, and there is a point at which I am concerned that there might be circular logic.



Here's what I've got so far:
$$f'(x)=f(x)$$
$$fracf'(x)f(x)=1$$
$$intfracf'(x)f(x)dx=x+c_0$$
Letting $y=f(x)$ gives
$$intfracdyy=x+c_0$$
Which gives $$ln|y|=x+c_0$$
$$f(x)=c_1e^x$$
QED



The bit I'm concerned about is $intfracdyy=ln|y|$.



Is there any proof of $$intfracdxx=ln|x|$$
which doesn't use $fracddxe^x=e^x$?



Edit: If it wasn't clear, I am asking if there is a way that one can prove that $$intfracdxx=ln|x|$$
without relying on the fact that $fracddxe^x=e^x$?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 5




    How do you define $e^x$? Some people define $ln(x) := int_1^x frac1t , dt, ; x>0$ and then define $e^x$ as its inverse. In that case, there is no circular reasoning.
    – Sobi
    1 hour ago











  • @Sobi which ever way makes my proof valid...?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Assuming you have defined $e = lim_n to infty (1+1/n)^n$, you could differentiate $ln(x)$ directly and appeal to this limit. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1341958/…
    – welshman500
    1 hour ago











  • @Sobi Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    @MarkViola If one first define $log$ from the integral and then $exp$ as its inverse function, then one can define $a^x=exp(xlog a)$; in the particular case of $a=e=exp(1)$, we get $e^x=exp(x)$. No need to have predefined general exponential functions.
    – egreg
    1 hour ago













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I am trying to prove that $e^x$ is a solution to $f'(x)=f(x)$, and there is a point at which I am concerned that there might be circular logic.



Here's what I've got so far:
$$f'(x)=f(x)$$
$$fracf'(x)f(x)=1$$
$$intfracf'(x)f(x)dx=x+c_0$$
Letting $y=f(x)$ gives
$$intfracdyy=x+c_0$$
Which gives $$ln|y|=x+c_0$$
$$f(x)=c_1e^x$$
QED



The bit I'm concerned about is $intfracdyy=ln|y|$.



Is there any proof of $$intfracdxx=ln|x|$$
which doesn't use $fracddxe^x=e^x$?



Edit: If it wasn't clear, I am asking if there is a way that one can prove that $$intfracdxx=ln|x|$$
without relying on the fact that $fracddxe^x=e^x$?










share|cite|improve this question















I am trying to prove that $e^x$ is a solution to $f'(x)=f(x)$, and there is a point at which I am concerned that there might be circular logic.



Here's what I've got so far:
$$f'(x)=f(x)$$
$$fracf'(x)f(x)=1$$
$$intfracf'(x)f(x)dx=x+c_0$$
Letting $y=f(x)$ gives
$$intfracdyy=x+c_0$$
Which gives $$ln|y|=x+c_0$$
$$f(x)=c_1e^x$$
QED



The bit I'm concerned about is $intfracdyy=ln|y|$.



Is there any proof of $$intfracdxx=ln|x|$$
which doesn't use $fracddxe^x=e^x$?



Edit: If it wasn't clear, I am asking if there is a way that one can prove that $$intfracdxx=ln|x|$$
without relying on the fact that $fracddxe^x=e^x$?







proof-verification logic proof-writing






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago

























asked 1 hour ago









clathratus

1,005117




1,005117







  • 5




    How do you define $e^x$? Some people define $ln(x) := int_1^x frac1t , dt, ; x>0$ and then define $e^x$ as its inverse. In that case, there is no circular reasoning.
    – Sobi
    1 hour ago











  • @Sobi which ever way makes my proof valid...?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Assuming you have defined $e = lim_n to infty (1+1/n)^n$, you could differentiate $ln(x)$ directly and appeal to this limit. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1341958/…
    – welshman500
    1 hour ago











  • @Sobi Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    @MarkViola If one first define $log$ from the integral and then $exp$ as its inverse function, then one can define $a^x=exp(xlog a)$; in the particular case of $a=e=exp(1)$, we get $e^x=exp(x)$. No need to have predefined general exponential functions.
    – egreg
    1 hour ago













  • 5




    How do you define $e^x$? Some people define $ln(x) := int_1^x frac1t , dt, ; x>0$ and then define $e^x$ as its inverse. In that case, there is no circular reasoning.
    – Sobi
    1 hour ago











  • @Sobi which ever way makes my proof valid...?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    Assuming you have defined $e = lim_n to infty (1+1/n)^n$, you could differentiate $ln(x)$ directly and appeal to this limit. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1341958/…
    – welshman500
    1 hour ago











  • @Sobi Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    @MarkViola If one first define $log$ from the integral and then $exp$ as its inverse function, then one can define $a^x=exp(xlog a)$; in the particular case of $a=e=exp(1)$, we get $e^x=exp(x)$. No need to have predefined general exponential functions.
    – egreg
    1 hour ago








5




5




How do you define $e^x$? Some people define $ln(x) := int_1^x frac1t , dt, ; x>0$ and then define $e^x$ as its inverse. In that case, there is no circular reasoning.
– Sobi
1 hour ago





How do you define $e^x$? Some people define $ln(x) := int_1^x frac1t , dt, ; x>0$ and then define $e^x$ as its inverse. In that case, there is no circular reasoning.
– Sobi
1 hour ago













@Sobi which ever way makes my proof valid...?
– clathratus
1 hour ago




@Sobi which ever way makes my proof valid...?
– clathratus
1 hour ago




1




1




Assuming you have defined $e = lim_n to infty (1+1/n)^n$, you could differentiate $ln(x)$ directly and appeal to this limit. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1341958/…
– welshman500
1 hour ago





Assuming you have defined $e = lim_n to infty (1+1/n)^n$, you could differentiate $ln(x)$ directly and appeal to this limit. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1341958/…
– welshman500
1 hour ago













@Sobi Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
– Mark Viola
1 hour ago




@Sobi Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
– Mark Viola
1 hour ago




1




1




@MarkViola If one first define $log$ from the integral and then $exp$ as its inverse function, then one can define $a^x=exp(xlog a)$; in the particular case of $a=e=exp(1)$, we get $e^x=exp(x)$. No need to have predefined general exponential functions.
– egreg
1 hour ago





@MarkViola If one first define $log$ from the integral and then $exp$ as its inverse function, then one can define $a^x=exp(xlog a)$; in the particular case of $a=e=exp(1)$, we get $e^x=exp(x)$. No need to have predefined general exponential functions.
– egreg
1 hour ago











4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










Here's a way to remove the circularity.



Define $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. Then
$$
g(xy) = int_1^xyfracdtt = int_1^xfracdtt + int_x^xyfracdtt = int_1^xfracdtt + int_1^yfracduu = g(x)+g(y)
$$

where $t = xu$ is used for the substitution. This property is unique to logarithm functions, and its base will be the number $e$ such that $g(e) = 1$. So $g(x) = log_e(x)$, and $g^-1(x) = e^x$.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • just for clarification: are you defining $e$ as the base of the logarithm?
    – clathratus
    14 mins ago






  • 1




    Yes. The base of any logarithm function is the value it maps to 1.
    – eyeballfrog
    13 mins ago










  • Okay I think I get it... We define $g(x)$ as the function that satisfies $$g(xy)=g(x)+g(y)$$ Then we note that its a logarithm, then we define $e$ as its base?
    – clathratus
    9 mins ago










  • No, $g$ is defined by $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. We then show it has the property $g(xy) = g(x) + g(y)$, which means it must be a logarithm to some base. Then we define $e$ as that base.
    – eyeballfrog
    3 mins ago


















up vote
2
down vote













This is one way to define the logarithmic functions.



$$ln x= int _1 ^x fracdtt, text for x > 0 $$



So with this convenience, your proof is OK.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • does this definition ensure that $e^x$ and $ln x$ are inverses?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago










  • @clathratus No, it does not. That is why they define $e^x$ to be the inverse of $ln x $
    – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago










  • @MarkViola how does one do so (prove that $exp(x)=e^x$)?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    See THIS and THIS, THIS, and THIS.
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago

















up vote
1
down vote













Assuming the question you are asking is indeed that which you are trying to solve, to show that $e^x$ is a solution to $f' = f$ all you have to do is show that $fracddxe^x = e^x$. Which can be fairly easily done by looking at the series definition of $e^x$ term by term and differentiating.



If you're interested in investigating whether or not $ke^x$ is the only solution to $f' = f$ (which it is), then other steps are necessary.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • I know how to prove that $De^x=e^x$ with series, but I want to know if solving the ODE is a valid proof
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago










  • Using the definition of $exp(x)=sum_n=0^infty fracx^nn!$, one would still need to show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident.
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago

















up vote
1
down vote













The usual proof of this is by setting $g(x)=f(x)e^-x$ and prove $g'=0$.



See for instance: Proof that $Cexp(x)$ is the only set of functions for which $f(x) = f'(x)$



Nevertheless your reasoning is correct, but solving the ODE this way lacks of rigour (dividing by $f(x)$ without discussing the annulation). Instead it should be used as a hint to find that solutions looks like $Ce^x$ then by CL theorem you claim their maximality and uniqueness.



See for instance LinAlgMan's answer here: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/409974/399263






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • I like your approach here. Thank you
    – clathratus
    9 mins ago










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2973913%2fdoes-this-proof-contain-circular-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
1
down vote



accepted










Here's a way to remove the circularity.



Define $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. Then
$$
g(xy) = int_1^xyfracdtt = int_1^xfracdtt + int_x^xyfracdtt = int_1^xfracdtt + int_1^yfracduu = g(x)+g(y)
$$

where $t = xu$ is used for the substitution. This property is unique to logarithm functions, and its base will be the number $e$ such that $g(e) = 1$. So $g(x) = log_e(x)$, and $g^-1(x) = e^x$.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • just for clarification: are you defining $e$ as the base of the logarithm?
    – clathratus
    14 mins ago






  • 1




    Yes. The base of any logarithm function is the value it maps to 1.
    – eyeballfrog
    13 mins ago










  • Okay I think I get it... We define $g(x)$ as the function that satisfies $$g(xy)=g(x)+g(y)$$ Then we note that its a logarithm, then we define $e$ as its base?
    – clathratus
    9 mins ago










  • No, $g$ is defined by $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. We then show it has the property $g(xy) = g(x) + g(y)$, which means it must be a logarithm to some base. Then we define $e$ as that base.
    – eyeballfrog
    3 mins ago















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










Here's a way to remove the circularity.



Define $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. Then
$$
g(xy) = int_1^xyfracdtt = int_1^xfracdtt + int_x^xyfracdtt = int_1^xfracdtt + int_1^yfracduu = g(x)+g(y)
$$

where $t = xu$ is used for the substitution. This property is unique to logarithm functions, and its base will be the number $e$ such that $g(e) = 1$. So $g(x) = log_e(x)$, and $g^-1(x) = e^x$.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • just for clarification: are you defining $e$ as the base of the logarithm?
    – clathratus
    14 mins ago






  • 1




    Yes. The base of any logarithm function is the value it maps to 1.
    – eyeballfrog
    13 mins ago










  • Okay I think I get it... We define $g(x)$ as the function that satisfies $$g(xy)=g(x)+g(y)$$ Then we note that its a logarithm, then we define $e$ as its base?
    – clathratus
    9 mins ago










  • No, $g$ is defined by $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. We then show it has the property $g(xy) = g(x) + g(y)$, which means it must be a logarithm to some base. Then we define $e$ as that base.
    – eyeballfrog
    3 mins ago













up vote
1
down vote



accepted







up vote
1
down vote



accepted






Here's a way to remove the circularity.



Define $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. Then
$$
g(xy) = int_1^xyfracdtt = int_1^xfracdtt + int_x^xyfracdtt = int_1^xfracdtt + int_1^yfracduu = g(x)+g(y)
$$

where $t = xu$ is used for the substitution. This property is unique to logarithm functions, and its base will be the number $e$ such that $g(e) = 1$. So $g(x) = log_e(x)$, and $g^-1(x) = e^x$.






share|cite|improve this answer












Here's a way to remove the circularity.



Define $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. Then
$$
g(xy) = int_1^xyfracdtt = int_1^xfracdtt + int_x^xyfracdtt = int_1^xfracdtt + int_1^yfracduu = g(x)+g(y)
$$

where $t = xu$ is used for the substitution. This property is unique to logarithm functions, and its base will be the number $e$ such that $g(e) = 1$. So $g(x) = log_e(x)$, and $g^-1(x) = e^x$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 16 mins ago









eyeballfrog

5,336528




5,336528











  • just for clarification: are you defining $e$ as the base of the logarithm?
    – clathratus
    14 mins ago






  • 1




    Yes. The base of any logarithm function is the value it maps to 1.
    – eyeballfrog
    13 mins ago










  • Okay I think I get it... We define $g(x)$ as the function that satisfies $$g(xy)=g(x)+g(y)$$ Then we note that its a logarithm, then we define $e$ as its base?
    – clathratus
    9 mins ago










  • No, $g$ is defined by $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. We then show it has the property $g(xy) = g(x) + g(y)$, which means it must be a logarithm to some base. Then we define $e$ as that base.
    – eyeballfrog
    3 mins ago

















  • just for clarification: are you defining $e$ as the base of the logarithm?
    – clathratus
    14 mins ago






  • 1




    Yes. The base of any logarithm function is the value it maps to 1.
    – eyeballfrog
    13 mins ago










  • Okay I think I get it... We define $g(x)$ as the function that satisfies $$g(xy)=g(x)+g(y)$$ Then we note that its a logarithm, then we define $e$ as its base?
    – clathratus
    9 mins ago










  • No, $g$ is defined by $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. We then show it has the property $g(xy) = g(x) + g(y)$, which means it must be a logarithm to some base. Then we define $e$ as that base.
    – eyeballfrog
    3 mins ago
















just for clarification: are you defining $e$ as the base of the logarithm?
– clathratus
14 mins ago




just for clarification: are you defining $e$ as the base of the logarithm?
– clathratus
14 mins ago




1




1




Yes. The base of any logarithm function is the value it maps to 1.
– eyeballfrog
13 mins ago




Yes. The base of any logarithm function is the value it maps to 1.
– eyeballfrog
13 mins ago












Okay I think I get it... We define $g(x)$ as the function that satisfies $$g(xy)=g(x)+g(y)$$ Then we note that its a logarithm, then we define $e$ as its base?
– clathratus
9 mins ago




Okay I think I get it... We define $g(x)$ as the function that satisfies $$g(xy)=g(x)+g(y)$$ Then we note that its a logarithm, then we define $e$ as its base?
– clathratus
9 mins ago












No, $g$ is defined by $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. We then show it has the property $g(xy) = g(x) + g(y)$, which means it must be a logarithm to some base. Then we define $e$ as that base.
– eyeballfrog
3 mins ago





No, $g$ is defined by $g(x) = int_1^x dt/t$. We then show it has the property $g(xy) = g(x) + g(y)$, which means it must be a logarithm to some base. Then we define $e$ as that base.
– eyeballfrog
3 mins ago











up vote
2
down vote













This is one way to define the logarithmic functions.



$$ln x= int _1 ^x fracdtt, text for x > 0 $$



So with this convenience, your proof is OK.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • does this definition ensure that $e^x$ and $ln x$ are inverses?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago










  • @clathratus No, it does not. That is why they define $e^x$ to be the inverse of $ln x $
    – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago










  • @MarkViola how does one do so (prove that $exp(x)=e^x$)?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    See THIS and THIS, THIS, and THIS.
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago














up vote
2
down vote













This is one way to define the logarithmic functions.



$$ln x= int _1 ^x fracdtt, text for x > 0 $$



So with this convenience, your proof is OK.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • does this definition ensure that $e^x$ and $ln x$ are inverses?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago










  • @clathratus No, it does not. That is why they define $e^x$ to be the inverse of $ln x $
    – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago










  • @MarkViola how does one do so (prove that $exp(x)=e^x$)?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    See THIS and THIS, THIS, and THIS.
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago












up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









This is one way to define the logarithmic functions.



$$ln x= int _1 ^x fracdtt, text for x > 0 $$



So with this convenience, your proof is OK.






share|cite|improve this answer












This is one way to define the logarithmic functions.



$$ln x= int _1 ^x fracdtt, text for x > 0 $$



So with this convenience, your proof is OK.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 1 hour ago









Mohammad Riazi-Kermani

36.5k41956




36.5k41956











  • does this definition ensure that $e^x$ and $ln x$ are inverses?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago










  • @clathratus No, it does not. That is why they define $e^x$ to be the inverse of $ln x $
    – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago










  • @MarkViola how does one do so (prove that $exp(x)=e^x$)?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    See THIS and THIS, THIS, and THIS.
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago
















  • does this definition ensure that $e^x$ and $ln x$ are inverses?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago










  • @clathratus No, it does not. That is why they define $e^x$ to be the inverse of $ln x $
    – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago










  • @MarkViola how does one do so (prove that $exp(x)=e^x$)?
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    See THIS and THIS, THIS, and THIS.
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago















does this definition ensure that $e^x$ and $ln x$ are inverses?
– clathratus
1 hour ago




does this definition ensure that $e^x$ and $ln x$ are inverses?
– clathratus
1 hour ago












@clathratus No, it does not. That is why they define $e^x$ to be the inverse of $ln x $
– Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
1 hour ago




@clathratus No, it does not. That is why they define $e^x$ to be the inverse of $ln x $
– Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
1 hour ago




2




2




Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
– Mark Viola
1 hour ago




Using the definition of $exp(x)$ to be the inverse of $log(x)=int_1^x frac1t,dt$, one would need to still show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident!
– Mark Viola
1 hour ago












@MarkViola how does one do so (prove that $exp(x)=e^x$)?
– clathratus
1 hour ago





@MarkViola how does one do so (prove that $exp(x)=e^x$)?
– clathratus
1 hour ago





1




1




See THIS and THIS, THIS, and THIS.
– Mark Viola
1 hour ago




See THIS and THIS, THIS, and THIS.
– Mark Viola
1 hour ago










up vote
1
down vote













Assuming the question you are asking is indeed that which you are trying to solve, to show that $e^x$ is a solution to $f' = f$ all you have to do is show that $fracddxe^x = e^x$. Which can be fairly easily done by looking at the series definition of $e^x$ term by term and differentiating.



If you're interested in investigating whether or not $ke^x$ is the only solution to $f' = f$ (which it is), then other steps are necessary.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • I know how to prove that $De^x=e^x$ with series, but I want to know if solving the ODE is a valid proof
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago










  • Using the definition of $exp(x)=sum_n=0^infty fracx^nn!$, one would still need to show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident.
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago














up vote
1
down vote













Assuming the question you are asking is indeed that which you are trying to solve, to show that $e^x$ is a solution to $f' = f$ all you have to do is show that $fracddxe^x = e^x$. Which can be fairly easily done by looking at the series definition of $e^x$ term by term and differentiating.



If you're interested in investigating whether or not $ke^x$ is the only solution to $f' = f$ (which it is), then other steps are necessary.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • I know how to prove that $De^x=e^x$ with series, but I want to know if solving the ODE is a valid proof
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago










  • Using the definition of $exp(x)=sum_n=0^infty fracx^nn!$, one would still need to show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident.
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago












up vote
1
down vote










up vote
1
down vote









Assuming the question you are asking is indeed that which you are trying to solve, to show that $e^x$ is a solution to $f' = f$ all you have to do is show that $fracddxe^x = e^x$. Which can be fairly easily done by looking at the series definition of $e^x$ term by term and differentiating.



If you're interested in investigating whether or not $ke^x$ is the only solution to $f' = f$ (which it is), then other steps are necessary.






share|cite|improve this answer














Assuming the question you are asking is indeed that which you are trying to solve, to show that $e^x$ is a solution to $f' = f$ all you have to do is show that $fracddxe^x = e^x$. Which can be fairly easily done by looking at the series definition of $e^x$ term by term and differentiating.



If you're interested in investigating whether or not $ke^x$ is the only solution to $f' = f$ (which it is), then other steps are necessary.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























answered 1 hour ago









J. Arrillaga

463




463











  • I know how to prove that $De^x=e^x$ with series, but I want to know if solving the ODE is a valid proof
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago










  • Using the definition of $exp(x)=sum_n=0^infty fracx^nn!$, one would still need to show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident.
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago
















  • I know how to prove that $De^x=e^x$ with series, but I want to know if solving the ODE is a valid proof
    – clathratus
    1 hour ago










  • Using the definition of $exp(x)=sum_n=0^infty fracx^nn!$, one would still need to show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident.
    – Mark Viola
    1 hour ago















I know how to prove that $De^x=e^x$ with series, but I want to know if solving the ODE is a valid proof
– clathratus
1 hour ago




I know how to prove that $De^x=e^x$ with series, but I want to know if solving the ODE is a valid proof
– clathratus
1 hour ago












Using the definition of $exp(x)=sum_n=0^infty fracx^nn!$, one would still need to show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident.
– Mark Viola
1 hour ago




Using the definition of $exp(x)=sum_n=0^infty fracx^nn!$, one would still need to show that $exp(x)=(e)^x$, which is not directly evident.
– Mark Viola
1 hour ago










up vote
1
down vote













The usual proof of this is by setting $g(x)=f(x)e^-x$ and prove $g'=0$.



See for instance: Proof that $Cexp(x)$ is the only set of functions for which $f(x) = f'(x)$



Nevertheless your reasoning is correct, but solving the ODE this way lacks of rigour (dividing by $f(x)$ without discussing the annulation). Instead it should be used as a hint to find that solutions looks like $Ce^x$ then by CL theorem you claim their maximality and uniqueness.



See for instance LinAlgMan's answer here: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/409974/399263






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • I like your approach here. Thank you
    – clathratus
    9 mins ago














up vote
1
down vote













The usual proof of this is by setting $g(x)=f(x)e^-x$ and prove $g'=0$.



See for instance: Proof that $Cexp(x)$ is the only set of functions for which $f(x) = f'(x)$



Nevertheless your reasoning is correct, but solving the ODE this way lacks of rigour (dividing by $f(x)$ without discussing the annulation). Instead it should be used as a hint to find that solutions looks like $Ce^x$ then by CL theorem you claim their maximality and uniqueness.



See for instance LinAlgMan's answer here: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/409974/399263






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • I like your approach here. Thank you
    – clathratus
    9 mins ago












up vote
1
down vote










up vote
1
down vote









The usual proof of this is by setting $g(x)=f(x)e^-x$ and prove $g'=0$.



See for instance: Proof that $Cexp(x)$ is the only set of functions for which $f(x) = f'(x)$



Nevertheless your reasoning is correct, but solving the ODE this way lacks of rigour (dividing by $f(x)$ without discussing the annulation). Instead it should be used as a hint to find that solutions looks like $Ce^x$ then by CL theorem you claim their maximality and uniqueness.



See for instance LinAlgMan's answer here: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/409974/399263






share|cite|improve this answer












The usual proof of this is by setting $g(x)=f(x)e^-x$ and prove $g'=0$.



See for instance: Proof that $Cexp(x)$ is the only set of functions for which $f(x) = f'(x)$



Nevertheless your reasoning is correct, but solving the ODE this way lacks of rigour (dividing by $f(x)$ without discussing the annulation). Instead it should be used as a hint to find that solutions looks like $Ce^x$ then by CL theorem you claim their maximality and uniqueness.



See for instance LinAlgMan's answer here: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/409974/399263







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 30 mins ago









zwim

11.1k628




11.1k628











  • I like your approach here. Thank you
    – clathratus
    9 mins ago
















  • I like your approach here. Thank you
    – clathratus
    9 mins ago















I like your approach here. Thank you
– clathratus
9 mins ago




I like your approach here. Thank you
– clathratus
9 mins ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2973913%2fdoes-this-proof-contain-circular-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Christian Cage

How to properly install USB display driver for Fresco Logic FL2000DX on Ubuntu?