Je bent je ingevulde velden bij deze pagina aan het verwijderen. Ben je zeker dat je dit wilt doen?
You are erasing your filled-in fields on this page. Are you sure that is what you want?
Nieuwe Versie BeschikbaarNew Version Available
Er is een update van deze pagina. Als je update naar de meest recente versie, verlies je mogelijk je huidige antwoorden voor deze pagina. Hoe wil je verdergaan ?
There is an updated version of this page. If you update to the most recent version, then your current progress on this page will be erased. Regardless, your record of completion will remain. How would you like to proceed?
(Supplemental Videos are included via external link so you don’t have to watch them to earn credit.)
Text and Additional Details
We will begin by trying to determine the derivative of and, as always, let’s start by looking at the difference
quotient.
Unlike most of our previous derivations for derivative rules, this one isn’t going to be solved by adding zero or multiplying
by one “cleverly”. Indeed, the underlying problem here is actually that there is a hidden limit that we haven’t
noticed!
has a very special property in calculus, which we will discover shortly, but itself can be defined in many ways.
You may have encountered it as simply an irrational constant approximately equal to 2.7182818... You may have
seen it defined in it’s more proper form however, which is the value of a limit (although they may not have used
limit notation explicitly at the time). Indeed, was originally defined by Jacob Bernoulli in the late 1600s as the
following:
So, this means that in our difference quotient, the that is used as a base is actually a limit itself, which explains why the algebra
might get a bit messy trying to simplify this expression!
To proceed, instead of trying to manipulate the difference quotient directly, we will do a little manipulation to the
definition of . In particular, let’s substitute . Notice that as , . With this in mind we can rewrite the definition of as
follows:
Believe it or not, with this somewhat simple (but admittedly non-obvious) substitution, we are ready to proceed!
Rule of Exponents
Factor out
doesn’t depend on
Substitute our Definition of
Rule of Exponents
Rule of Exponents
Simplify
Simplify
Evaluate Limit
At this point you might be thinking, “Wait... did we just do all that work to get back where we started?” And the answer is, Yes!
Yes we did (cue maniacal laughter)! Indeed, we just showed that the derivative of is itself!
And as a first use, we will use this to develop a rule to take a derivative of for .
Rather than looking at the difference quotient, we are going to manipulate the expression directly by using the fact that and
.
Thus, we can use the chain rule on the above expression when taking a derivative:
Identity from earlier.
Derivative of and chain rule.
Derivative of is 1, and Constant Multiple Rule.
Simplify and apply earlier identity to return to form.
So, using the rule we can deduce a general rule for for any . Notice here that, if this rule still works because we get , so if we
apply the rule with base we get:
Moreover, if the rule also still works, it is just somewhat silly since is not a particularly interesting function (at least in the real
numbers), so using our rule we get:
So, as we saw, there is something special going on with that makes the derivation of the derivative rule for a pretty
different process. Nonetheless, this rule immediately generalizes to for any . We conclude by formally recording our
rule:
Exponential Rule Let for some real number . Then In particular, if is the irrational constant , i.e. , then
1 : The reason is a special function in calculus is...
It lets us deduce a derivative rule for another functionThe derivative of
is itself, the derivative doesn’t seem to change it.The derivative of is just a special case of the derivative rule for .Apparently
the author of this page really loves .