Section 6: Exponentials and Logarithms© 1997 by Karl Hahn |
|
Return now to the example of that bacteria that doubled its numbers every 60 minutes. Remember that after 10 hours, a single bacterium had multiplied into 1024 (that is 210). In the 11th hour, we expected that the population would increase from 1024 to 2048 (that is to 211), for a net increase of 1024.
In fact, in any hour, the net increase is we expect precisely the amount there were at the beginning of the hour. But what is the increase we expect in, say, half an hour? If the population grows in 1 hour to 21 times what it was, then in half an hour, we expect it to grow to 20.5 times what it was. And from our discussion in the last section, we know that 20.5 is in fact √2 = 1.41421356... So the population after 10.5 hours ought to be 1024 × 1.41421356... = 1448.15... The net increase in that half hour is
(1024 × 1.41421356) - 1024 = 1024 × (1.41421356 - 1) = 424.15What I'd like you to notice is not the 424.15, but the middle expression. Notice that it is the product of the starting amount and √2 - 1. And it doesn't matter which half hour you examine. The net increase is still the starting amount times that number. If, for example, you looked at the half hour that elapses from 16 hours to 16.5 hours, we see that the starting amount is 65536 (that is 216). The net increase in that elapsed half hour is 65536 × (√2 - 1) ) = 27145.9.
And what about the net increase in a quarter-hour period? We expect that if there are n at the beginning of the quarter-hour, then at the end of the quarter-hour there ought to be n × 20.25. Hence the net increase in that time is n × (20.25 - 1) (by the way, if you hadn't already figured this out, 20.25 is the same as √(√2) -- the square root of the square root of 2). Again the point is that it doesn't matter which quarter hour you choose. The net increase is always in direct proportion to the number of bacteria present at the beginning of the quarter hour.
Remember also that we determined that if the bacteria colony is allowed to grow unchecked for several days, the population would grow so large that cell divisions would be taking place in even the shortest imaginable time intervals. Still you would find that even over a millisecond, the net increase in population would continue to be in direct proportion to the population at the start of that millisecond. One millisecond is 0.0000002778 hours. So if there are n bacteria at the beginning of a millisecond, there should be n × 20.00000002778 at the end of the millisecond, for a net increase of n × (20.00000002778 - 1). My calculator says that (20.00000002778 - 1) is approximately equal to 0.00000001925. So if there were a billion (that is a thousand million) bacteria, a millisecond should bring forth 192.5 more. If there were ten billion, a millisecond should bring forth 1925 more.
This is the operative property of all exponentials: the rate of increase is always in direct proportion to the exponential itself. And in place of the phrase rate of increase we can substitute the word derivative. We have demonstrated the truth of this informally with our discussion of the bacteria colony. We now go on to demonstrate it mathematically. Warning: The derivation that follows is likely to be on the exam.
Recall from section 4.1 how we define a derivative.
df f(x + h) - f(x)
f'(x) = = lim eq. 4.1-2
dx h → 0 h
If you wanted to know the derivative of the function
f(x) = 2x eq. 6.2-1for example, you would substitute 2x for f(x) into eq. 4.1-2. Where you see f(x+h) you would substitute 2x+h. And you get
2x+h - 2x
f'(x) = lim eq. 6.2-2
h → 0 h
By taking this limit as h goes to zero, the derivative of
2x should emerge.
But how do you take that limit? First we can apply the basic rule of exponents that we developed in the last section. Notice that we have a term, 2x+h. And recall we had a rule about the sum of exponents.
2x+h = 2x × 2h eq. 6.2-3If you substitute this in for 2x+h, 6.2-2 becomes
(2x × 2h) - 2x
f'(x) = lim eq. 6.2-4
h → 0 h
Notice that the two terms in the numerator have a common factor of
2x. If you factor that out, you get
f'(x) = |
2h - 1
lim |
2x eq. 6.2-5 |
f'(x) = |
2h - 1
lim |
lim 2x eq. 6.2-6
h → 0
|
f'(x) = 2x × |
2h - 1
lim |
2h - 1
h
h
0.1 0.71773...
0.01 0.69555...
0.001 0.69339...
0.0001 0.69317...
0.00001 0.69314...
0.000001 0.69314...
Table 6.2-1
The table seems to indicate that the limit exists for the limit on the right-hand
side of 6.2-7, at least to 5 places beyond the decimal point. Assuming that
it does, we can say that the derivative of
f(x) = 2x is
f'(x) = 2x × 0.69314...
And we needn't restrict ourselves to 2x. Pick any positive real number, b. You can run the same derivation on f(x) = bx simply by replacing all the 2's with b's:
f'(x) = lim
h → 0
|
bx+h - bx |
f'(x) = lim
h → 0
|
(bx × bh) - bx |
f'(x) = lim
h → 0
|
bh - 1 |
bx eq. 6.2-10 |
f'(x) = lim
h → 0
|
bh - 1 |
lim bx eq. 6.2-11 h → 0 |
f'(x) = bx × |
bh - 1
lim |
This limit of
bh - 1
lim eq. 6.2-13
h → 0 h
is so important that we give it a special name. We call it
ln(b), which is an abbreviation for natural log of b.
We shall be studying the natural log intensely in the next
section. Perhaps you have already heard of the ln function
before, or perhaps your instructor has approached it in a different
way. That's ok. There are many roads to the ln function,
and in this tutorial I intend to show them all, and more importantly,
why they are all equivalent.
Using this shorthand for the limit
in 6.2-13, we can say that when
b > 0 and
f(x) = bx
f'(x) = bx × ln(b) eq. 6.2-14which is simply the the exponential, bx, times a constant.
Figure 6.2-1 shows a plot of f(x) = 2x. It is shown with a line tangent to it at the point (0, 1). That line has a slope of ln(2) = 0.69134718.... To find the slope of this curve anywhere else, simply take the y-coordinate and multiply it by ln(2). With a calculator and a judicious eyeball, you can even see (at least approximately) that this is true.
1) Let a and b be any positive real numbers. Apply the product rule to
f(x) = ax bxto determine its derivative. Use the shorthand, ln(a) and ln(b), where appropriate. Once you have an expression for f'(x), recall the rule you proved at the end of section 6.1 concerning ax × bx. Take the derivative of
f(x) = (ab)xWhat special property of ln(ab) can you infer from all this? Click here to see the solution, but make an honest effort to work it out yourself first.
2) Use the chain rule to determine the derivative of
f(x) = bcxwhere b is any positive real number and c is any real number. Once you're done with that, observe from our discussion in the last section that
bcx = (bc)xFind the derivative of the right-hand expression above. What other special property of ln(bc) does this suggest? When you are done working this, click here to see the solution.
3) Take everything you did in the second problem and simply substitute the expression, 1/ln(b), for every occurrence you find of c. Take whatever cancellations you can. What unusual and mathematically interesting relationship do you now find between the resulting function and its derivative? When you see an interesting property and you think it's the one I'm after, click here.
4) Use the product rule to determine the derivative of
x2
f(x) = |
bx |
5) Use the chain rule to determine the derivative of
f(x) = b-x2where b is any positive real number. Make your best effort, then click here to see if you got it right.
6) Let b be a positive real number and let n be a counting number. Suppose you didn't know what a particular f(x) was, but you knew that the equation,
bf(x) = xnalways holds. Use implicit differentiation (which is really just an application of the chain rule) to find the derivative of f(x). Hint: Once you have applied implicit differentiation, there will be a substitution you can make using the original equation for f(x) that will enable you to simplify the result. The simplicity of the final answer will surprise you. Click here when you are done.
Move on to Be Frugal and Add (logarithms)
You can email me by clicking this button: