3

let $p_n(x)=x^n$ be a polynomial of degree $n$. I need help to be able to explain to my students why the derivative of $p$ is defined as follows:

$$ p_n'(x)=\frac{dx^n}{dx}=nx^{n-1} $$

for every $n\geq1$.

Note: I'd prefer geometric proofs if any exist.

Edit:I edited the question as it is related to the recent question

Thank you for any help

  • 2
    Are your students ok with the Binomial Theorem? – David Quinn Aug 17 '15 at 22:54
  • 3
    What do you mean by "defined?" This follows from the definition of the derivative and is derived in any introductory calculus textbook. – Alex R. Aug 17 '15 at 22:54
  • First principles convinced me at A-level – Alec Teal Aug 17 '15 at 22:54
  • 1
    Induction is the simplest way. – David P Aug 17 '15 at 22:55
  • As per David Quinn's comment, here is a link using binomial theorem: http://www.mathshelper.co.uk/Differentiation%20FFP.pdf – AmpleMimic Aug 17 '15 at 22:55
  • 4
    If you already have the Product Rule, use it to find the derivative of $x^2=x\cdot x$, and then of $x^3=x\cdot x^2$, and then of $x^4=x\cdot x^3$ and then of $x^5=x\cdot x^4$, and the pattern will become clear. – André Nicolas Aug 17 '15 at 23:02
  • 1
    There is a nice intuitive explanation here. – Chester Aug 17 '15 at 23:17
  • @AndréNicolas That is the proof that is also given by Hairer/Wanner: Analysis by It's History. I guess that it's the less bureaucratic way to do it, since it rely only in the proof of the product rule, which is quite simple. – Red Banana Aug 17 '15 at 23:38
  • 3
    As far as convincing goes, it is better not to do a formal induction. If one does it in a lecture for $2,3,4,5$, in the "same" way each time, the fact that one can continue is clear to (most of) them. But it is best to do it in several ways, and when one meets the exponential function, to derive the familiar derivative of $x^n$ from that, again. I am not so sure about the simplicity of derivation of the Product Rule, one usually uses an unmotivated trick. – André Nicolas Aug 17 '15 at 23:58
  • There is some overkill in the conventional argument that starts with $\displaystyle\lim_{h\to0}\frac{(x+h)^n-x^n}{h}$. See my second answer below. (I've posted two answers that are very different from each other.) ${}\qquad{}$ – Michael Hardy Aug 18 '15 at 13:12
  • http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1188028/what-is-meant-by-find-the-slope-of-the-tangent-to-the-graph-of-f-at-a-general-p/1188102#1188102 –  Jul 29 '16 at 23:17

6 Answers6

8

Look at a cube in $n$-dimensional space, whose side has changing length $x$. Fix the sides meeting at one vertex in their places, so that all motion is motion of $n$ the sides opposite those. Each side has $(n-1)$-dimensional volume $x^{n-1}$. So the total size of the moving boundaries is $nx^{n-1}$.

The size of the boundary times the rate at which the boundary moves is the rate of change of size of the cube.

Therefore $x^n$ changes $nx^{n-1}$ times as fast as $x$ changes.

  • +1 from me, while this isn't the way I'd recommend anyone learned how to differentiate (because what would a general f(x) represent?) - it's a really good way at doing it with $x^n$! – Alec Teal Aug 18 '15 at 00:18
7

Differentiation from first principles is great. Draw a curve on the board, then draw the tangent to a point - that's your gradient, you can see that.

Then take $f(x+\delta x)$ and draw that, and the line connecting it to $f(x)$ for some values of $\delta x$ - this 'convinced me' (when I was 15/16) of how differentiation works, because I liked gradient of a line.

It becomes clear that "as $\delta x\rightarrow 0$ we get a better approximation"


We cannot divide by zero, so we cannot just plug in $\delta x =0$ this is where maths got interesting for me. What we did is we put $x^n$ as $f(x)$ (we actually used $x^2$ first, and $x^3$ but it was an AS level class) and this showed you can actually side-step the division by zero by using algebra.

Needless to say this amazed me!


For your $x^n$ it requires the binomial theorem. (I do recommend doing $x^2$ and $x^3$ "manually" first)

We note:

$$\frac{f(x+\delta x)-f(x)}{\delta x}=\frac{(x+\delta x)^n-x^n}{\delta x}$$ We expand: $$=\frac{x^n+nx^{n-1}\delta x+\ldots+nx(\delta x)^{n-1}+(\delta x)^n-x^n}{\delta x}$$ We note the terms cancel to give: $$=\frac{nx^{n-1}\delta x+\ldots+nx(\delta x)^{n-1}+(\delta x)^n}{\delta x}$$ Now we sidestep the division by zero (By factoring out a $\delta x$) $$=\frac{\delta x(nx^{n-1} x+\ldots+nx(\delta x)^{n-2}+(\delta x)^{n-1})}{\delta x}$$ We can do the divide $$=nx^{n-1} x+\ldots+nx(\delta x)^{n-2}+(\delta x)^{n-1}$$ NOW we can substitute $\delta x=0$ - we see: $$=nx^{n-1}$$

My mind was blown.

Alec Teal
  • 5,515
  • 3
  • 36
  • 59
  • 2
    You have a typo. – Pedro Aug 17 '15 at 23:28
  • @mistermarko just to justify that a bit (you are of course entirely right) - when I learned this there was no "doing stuff formally" if someone asked me "why does $\frac{1}{n}\rightarrow 0$ I'd reply "because I wouldn't want to live in a world where this isn't true" - so while non-rigorous, it was perfectly suited for teaching AS students. I then came to university and was hit with the shovel that was "real analysis" and envied the physicists. That's a rant for another time. – Alec Teal Aug 17 '15 at 23:50
  • we don't ever put dx=0.In the last step of Alec Teal's answer we just let dx converge to 0. – DanielWainfleet Aug 18 '15 at 00:28
  • That's the definition of a limit.... @user254665 Remember, 15/16 year olds, limit to them is just "fancy substitution" – Alec Teal Aug 18 '15 at 00:32
6

Use the definition of the derivative: $$\frac{dx^n}{dx}=\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(x+h)^n-x^n}{h}=\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{x^n+nx^{n-1}h+\cdots+h^n-x^n}{h}=\lim_{h\to 0}(nx^{n-1}+h(\cdots))=nx^{n-1}.$$

Plutoro
  • 22,730
  • 3
  • 41
  • 71
2

When $n$ is a natural number, you can do it with the binomial theorem, as Alec Teal and David Quinn suggested.

When $n$ is a nonzero integer, you can use the previous result and the quotient rule (or some analogue of the quotient rule).

When $n$ is a nonzero rational number, you can do it with implicit differentiation: $y=x^{m/n}$ is the same as $y^n=x^m$, now differentiate implicitly using the previous result and solve for $y'$.

When $n$ is an irrational number, the details get rather messy, and it becomes easier to deal with everything rigorously by taking a detour into the exponential and logarithm functions, and defining $x^n=\exp(n \ln(x))$.

All of this assumes $x$ is positive.

Ian
  • 101,645
1

It is the coefficient of $h$ in the linear part of $(x+h)^n$, as a function of $h$. Now by the binomial formula: $$(x+h)^n=x^n+nx^{n-1}h +\text{terms of higher degree in }h.$$ Thus the derivative is $\;nx^{n-1}$.

Bernard
  • 175,478
1

A zillion calculus textbooks do this by finding $\displaystyle\lim_{h\to0}\frac{(x+h)^n-x^n}{h}$ and expanding the binomial.

I think there's a bit of overkill in that argument: we only need the first two binomial coefficients, $1 \text{ and } n$, not all of them.

So do it like this instead: \begin{align} \lim_{y\to x}\frac{y^n-x^n}{y-x} & = \lim_{y\to x} \frac{(y-x)(y^{n-1} + y^{n-2}x+y^{n-3}x^2 + \cdots + x^{n-1})}{y-x} \\[10pt] & = \lim_{y\to x} \Big( y^{n-1} + y^{n-2}x+y^{n-3}x^2 + \cdots + x^{n-1} \Big) \\[10pt] & = x^{n-1} + x^{n-1} + x^{n-1} + \cdots + x^{n-1}. \end{align}