5

Using the definition $$ \ln x = \int_1^x \frac{dt}{t}, $$ is it possible to show that $\ln e = 1$ without showing first that $\exp$ and $\ln$ are inverse functions? Here, $e$ is defined by the series $$ e = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{k!}. $$


EDIT: A useful intermediate step in showing this result is $$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \left( 1 + \frac{1}{n} \right)^n = e. $$ However, the usual proof of this limit by L'Hospital's rule uses the fact that $\exp$ and $\ln$ are inverse functions. Is there an alternate proof that does not require the inverse property?

Remember, we are working from the series definition of $e$ stated above.

David Zhang
  • 8,835

5 Answers5

5

We have $\displaystyle \ln(x)=\int_1^x \frac{dt}{t}$. Set $\displaystyle g(x)=\sum_n \frac{x^n}{n!}$. Then $g(1)=e$, $g'(x)=g(x)$, and so $\ln(g(x))'=\ln'(g(x))g'(x)=\frac{1}{g(x)}g(x)=1$, hence $\ln(g(x))=x+c$. Since $g(0)=1$ and $\ln(1)=0$, we have $c=0$, hence $\ln(g(x))=x$, and so $\ln(e)=\ln(g(1))=1$.

JLA
  • 6,442
  • 2
  • 24
  • 40
  • You have just proven exactly the result I wish not to use. I am seeking a proof of $\ln e = 1$ without using that $\exp$ and $\ln$ are inverses. – David Zhang Apr 11 '14 at 05:45
  • 2
    @DavidZhang Where did I use the fact that $\exp$ and $\ln$ are inverses? – JLA Apr 11 '14 at 05:46
  • Your $g(x)$ is exactly the definition of $\exp x$. – David Zhang Apr 11 '14 at 05:47
  • 1
    +1: This answer doesn't use the fact that $\exp$ and $\ln$ are inverses. – copper.hat Apr 11 '14 at 05:49
  • @copper.hat Yes it does. Re-labeling $\exp x$ as $g(x)$ and then showing that $g$ and $\ln$ are inverses is equivalent to simply using the fact that $\exp$ and $\ln$ are inverses. – David Zhang Apr 11 '14 at 05:53
  • 3
    It does not. Showing that they are inverses and using the fact that they are are different things. You are asking to show that they are inverses at $t=0$ (or whatever), so you cannot escape showing that they are in some sense. – copper.hat Apr 11 '14 at 05:56
  • 1
    My apologies; my last comment was not very clear. What I mean to say is that this proof uses exactly the strategy used to prove that $\exp x$ and $\ln x$ are inverses. It simply picks out the particular case $x=1$ to show the desired result. While technically correct, this is not what I am looking for; after all, any question in the form "prove $x$ without using $y$" can be answered by proving $y$ for the particular case $x$. However, I will agree that this proof does answer the question as stated. – David Zhang Apr 11 '14 at 06:34
1

It can be shown quite easily (must add: using ONLY the binomial theorem, grumpy kid) that $$e=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{k!}=\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}(1+1/k)^k$$

If you don't want to get too picky about mathematical rigor, you will accept the following steps

$$\ln (\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}(1+1/k)^k)=\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\ln ((1+1/k)^k)$$

$$ =\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}k\ln ((1+1/k))$$ $$ =\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\ln ((1+1/k))}{1/k}$$ $$ =\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\frac{\ln (1+u)}{u}$$

Applying L'hospital and the fundamental theorem of calculus

$$ =\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{u+1}=1$$

  • I accept that you have shown $\ln \lim_{k \to \infty} (1 + \frac{1}{k})^k = 1$. However, how does this show that $\lim_{k \to \infty} (1 + \frac{1}{k})^k = e$ as defined above? I believe you have implicitly made use of $\ln$ and $\exp$ being inverses. – David Zhang Apr 11 '14 at 05:36
  • No, I have not. As I said 'It can be shown quite easily', that's why I didn't write that part. Just make a binomial expansion of $(1+1/k)^k=1+k \frac{1}{k}+\frac{(k)(k-1)}{2}\frac{1}{k^2}+...$, take the limit term by term, and you will get the first equation I wrote. – Matias Morant Apr 11 '14 at 05:53
  • ok, @DavidZhang? come on, I want to go sleeping already – Matias Morant Apr 11 '14 at 06:00
  • Nobody's saying you need to stay up and monitor the question. – David Zhang Apr 11 '14 at 06:04
  • hahahah come on... don't be so grumpy! but you didn't say if my last comment seemed enough to you or why not – Matias Morant Apr 11 '14 at 06:08
  • Sorry, I don't mean to come off as rude. The binomial expansion does work, but I have one more question: how can it be shown that $\ln a^b = b \ln a$ without using the inverse property? I can only prove this for integer $b$. – David Zhang Apr 11 '14 at 06:20
  • No, never mind. It suffices to show it for integer $b$. I'm not sure what I was thinking. – David Zhang Apr 11 '14 at 06:21
1

By the definition, we have $$ e = \lim_{n \to \infty}\left(1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^n. $$ Now, applying $\ln$ both sides. $$ \begin{align} \ln e &= \lim_{n \to \infty}\ln\left(1 + \frac{1}{n}\right)^n\\ \ln e&=\lim_{n \to \infty}n\ln\left(1 + \frac{1}{n}\right). \end{align} $$ Let $\dfrac{1}{n}=x\;\Rightarrow\; n=\dfrac{1}{x}$. As $n\to\infty$, $x\to0$, then $$ \ln e=\lim_{x \to 0}\frac{\ln\left(1 + x\right)}{x}. $$ Now you can apply L'Hospital's rule to the RHS. I hope this helps.

$$\\$$


$$\Large\color{blue}{\text{# }\mathbb{Q.E.D.}\text{ #}}$$

Tunk-Fey
  • 24,849
  • See my edit. I do not believe your first step can be justified without using the inverse property. – David Zhang Apr 11 '14 at 05:43
  • @DavidZhang I thought this that you were looking for that's why I asked you in the comment below. It's OK. My fault... :) – Tunk-Fey Apr 11 '14 at 05:48
  • Actually, after seeing some other answers, the first step can indeed be justified without using inverses by using binomial expansion. – David Zhang Apr 11 '14 at 06:25
1

One can show that $e = \lim_{n \to \infty} \left( 1 + \frac 1n\right)^n$ using only the binomial theorem.

  1. Consider $a_n = (1 + \frac 1n )^n$.
  2. By the binomial theorem, $$\begin{align} a_n &= \sum_{0 \leq k \leq n} {n \choose k} \left( \frac 1n \right)^k \\ &= 1 + 1 + \frac{1}{2!}(1 - \frac 1n) + \frac{1}{3!}(1 - \frac 1n)(1 - \frac 2n) + \ldots + \frac{1}{n!}(1 - \frac 1n)\cdots(1 - \frac{n-1}{n}). \end{align}$$

    From this, it's quite easy to see that $a_n < a_{n+1}$ and $a_n < e$ using your definition of $e$, so this limit exists.

  3. Fix some $m$ and consider the terms just up to $nm$: $$ 1 + 1 + \frac{1}{2!}(1 - \frac 1n) + \dots + \frac{1}{m!}(1 - \frac 1n)\cdots(1 - \frac{m-1}{n}),$$ which is clearly less than $a_n$, and as $n \to \infty$, this goes to $$ 1 + \frac{1}{1!} + \frac{1}{2!} + \dots + \frac{1}{m!}.$$ As we can do this for any $m < n$, taking the limits as $n \to \infty$ and then $m \to \infty$ gives us that $e \leq \lim a_n \leq e$, or that $e = \lim a_n$, which is what I sought to prove.

Now we see this doesn't use that exponentials and logarithms are inverses at all, and completes the proof.

0

We know that $e= \lim_{n \to +\infty}(1+\frac 1n)^{n}$.

Consider $\frac d{dx}(ln x)=\lim_{h \to0}\frac {ln(x+h)-ln(x)}h\ =\ lim_{h \to 0}\frac {ln(\frac {x+h}x)}h$ = $\lim_{h \to0}\frac 1hln(1+\frac hx)$

Let $u=\frac xh$ hence as $h\to 0$, $u\to \infty$. Thus we have

$\frac d{dx}(ln x)=\lim_{u \to +\infty}(\frac ux(ln(1+\frac 1u)))$ = $\lim_{u \to +\infty} (\frac 1x(ln(1+\frac 1u)^{u})$ = $\frac 1x lne$.

Now integrate both sides to get the result.

wanderer
  • 2,928