leave my brother alone..in maths he will kick your ass any day(Original post by generalebriety)
Well, perhaps I'm being unfair by expecting first year maths undergraduates to have some idea that the study of functions like e^x is analytical in nature, but...

 Follow
 81
 31012010 23:19

 Follow
 82
 31012010 23:49
(Original post by DFranklin)
Zhen: Are you talking about linear ODE's? If you're talking about nonlinear ones, I don't think it's true.
E.g. (dy/dx)^2 = y^2 sin^2 x. At each x=n \pi, you get to "choose" whether you will take dy/dx = y sin x or dy/dx = y sin x for the interval [n\pi, (n+1)\pi] , so there are an infinite number of lin. indep. solutions. (I think).
Yeah, I guess I mean linear ODEs. 
paronomase
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to paronomase
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 83
 31012010 23:53
(Original post by Simplicity)
Lol, wrong. Hmm, I can't be bothered to go into the full details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellordering_principle is logically the same as induction. So all you need to do to show induction is that its well ordered i.e. contains a smallest element http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathema...ical_induction
Actually, in applied maths complex numbers are improtant. So lol, it would be wrong to assume that you work in reals because of applied maths, as that is wrong. Hmm, note Penrose actually said that real numbers don't appear in nature that much its actually complex numbers that are more useful.
For what Penrose said, well...ok...good for you But I hope that you do not think that I'm going to be convinced because one man said something, and that you vaguely quoted it...and if you prefer to work with complex numbers, then just do it, I never said that there was any problem with doing so. On my side, I very rarely see problems of physics (such as mechanics, magnetism, electricity, etc.) with complex solutions but then you could say that I do not know much about it (and I could answer "how the **** can you be first year undergrad and know nothing about analysis & stuff...)
You are also quite arrogant, and I would not be if I were you. You cannot really boast about anything here. 
 Follow
 84
 01022010 01:09
(Original post by paronomase)
This. As is said, I consider it to be a problem of rigour, not of being verbose or not (I used the term verbose to refer to what some people here think my reasoning is about). Therefore, as you said, being more rigorous is hard. And in many cases (exclude this one), Alevels student are not rigorous enough in my opinion.
Oh, and I was referring to Alevels student that study in French prépas (I do not know the level in maths in other countries such as Russia, Germany, Japan, China...)
I would also argue that those A level students who are genuinely interested in maths and in pursuing a maths degree at university are more than capable to close the gaps in the material they're presented and make up for the lack of rigour, so it doesn't really matter in the end.
Finally, please don't think that the average aspiring UK mathematician is in any way like Simplicity... they're not. 
Oh I Really Don't Care
 Follow
 2 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to Oh I Really Don't Care
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 85
 01022010 01:45
(Original post by DFranklin)
You can also define a^x for rational x in a fairly algebraic way (you probably need a bit of analysis as well); if you want a^x to be continuous then defining it on the rationals is enough to define it on the irrationals as well (if x is irrational, take a rational sequence x_n tending to x). There are quite a few nasty details along the way I believe  I've never seen it actually done.
If a = m/n = p/q show (a^m)^1/n = (a^p)^1/q and then corresponding results about addition.
Define B(x) = {b^t  t <= x} show when r is rational b^r = supB(r) and then define a^x = SupB(x) for all x. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 60 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 86
 01022010 09:33
Dean: I don't think that's too different from what I was saying: the main nasty detail I see is showing that your B(x) is continuous.

Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 87
 01022010 19:44
(Original post by Y__)
Finally, please don't think that the average aspiring UK mathematician is in any way like Simplicity... they're not. 
Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 88
 01022010 19:47
(Original post by generalebriety)
Well, perhaps I'm being unfair by expecting first year maths undergraduates to have some idea that the study of functions like e^x is analytical in nature, but... 
Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 89
 01022010 19:53
(Original post by paronomase)
Yeah, giving me the link to wikipedia doesn't really help. You would know that the N set does not have a greatest element...that is why you can assume that n+1 exists for all n...Or maybe it's just that you never saw inductions on sets that were not N (or Z)..and in this case I cannot do anything for you. Oh, but wait, it's maybe a definition, and then it would be useless to try to question it.
For what Penrose said, well...ok...good for you But I hope that you do not think that I'm going to be convinced because one man said something, and that you vaguely quoted it...and if you prefer to work with complex numbers, then just do it, I never said that there was any problem with doing so. On my side, I very rarely see problems of physics (such as mechanics, magnetism, electricity, etc.) with complex solutions but then you could say that I do not know much about it (and I could answer "how the **** can you be first year undergrad and know nothing about analysis & stuff...)
You are also quite arrogant, and I would not be if I were you. You cannot really boast about anything here.
Lol, Penrose. Do you know who he is? Anyway, I agree with that generally. Hmm, QM uses complex numbers and it wouldn't make no sense without it. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4195653AAlB6sX Generally first anwser. But, yeah QM, look it up.
Actually, I'm not arrogant. Certainly, if I'm wrong I will admit I'm wrong. Like I did on that definition which wasen't a definition after all. Its just I don't usually agree with anyoneLast edited by Simplicity; 01022010 at 19:56. 
generalebriety
 Follow
 15 followers
 14 badges
 Send a private message to generalebriety
 Wiki Support Team
Offline14ReputationRep:Wiki Support Team Follow
 90
 01022010 20:20
(Original post by Simplicity)
I only know what I have been taught.
(Original post by Simplicity)
But, yeah I don't see the problem with taking induction as a basic axiom instead of deriving it. 
 Follow
 91
 01022010 21:13
(Original post by generalebriety)
Clearly the ethos at Manchester is different to what I had expected. Alright.
(On a serious note, am I misguided in thinking manchester is reasonably respected for maths?)
Anyway, would this not class as a proof that (e^x)(e^y)= e^(x+y):
Defining such that
Assuming the chain rule to be true.
Let
Let and
Therefore,
(May be talking ********, corrections if that's not valid would be appreciated. ) 
Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 92
 01022010 21:23
(Original post by generalebriety)
Clearly the ethos at Manchester is different to what I had expected. Alright.
Because you are exactly the sort of person who'd be in favour of taking everything as an axiom, and never seeing how they connected up. If you took induction as a basic axiom, you'd have to prove the wellordering principle from it, which (to me) is much more obvious than induction.
Hmmm, but still generally it is taken as an axiom. Certainly, the book I use takes it as an axiom. Isn't that the axiom of choice? well ordering principle?
P.S. I don't see the problem with taking some stuff as definitions or axioms. But, lol. In a pedantic way you could break axioms up into other things to deduce them, then you can do the same ad infinity. It would be pointless if the thing is obvious, or equivelent to something that is obvious i.e. well ordering.Last edited by Simplicity; 01022010 at 21:25. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 60 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 93
 01022010 21:25
(That objection is easy to understand but also easy to work around. A bigger question: why do you think such a function exists? Why do you think it is unique?)
Incidentally, if you ignore those issues, it is somewhat cleaner to show that

paronomase
 Follow
 0 followers
 0 badges
 Send a private message to paronomase
 Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep: Follow
 94
 01022010 22:01
(Original post by Simplicity)
Lol, Penrose. Do you know who he is? Anyway, I agree with that generally. Hmm, QM uses complex numbers and it wouldn't make no sense without it. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4195653AAlB6sX Generally first anwser. But, yeah QM, look it up.
And I know him because, unlike you, I do not only know what I've been teached..."(Original post by Simplicity)
I only know what I have been taught. I will know in a couple of weeks.
And again, your proof of e^(x+y) may be valid, but a proof always depends on what you take for granted at the beginning (that is exp'=exp, or exp is the reciprocal bijection of ln(x), etc.)
If you are curious about knowing my method (which I really doubt...) then here it is
Let h(x) = (e^(x+y))/(e^y), Dh=R because e^x>0 for all x of R
Therefore h is differentiable on R, and h'(x)=[(e^x+y)(e^y)]/[(e^y)²]
= [(e^x+y)]/(e^y)
= h(x)
In addition, h(0)=e^y/e^y = 1
Since h'=h and h(0)=1, h=e^x
therefore, e^x=(e^(x+y))/e^y
However, you could still say that my proof is incorrect, or at least partially correct. I just chose to take for granted that e^x is the only function so that f'=f and f(0)=1Last edited by paronomase; 01022010 at 22:04. 
 Follow
 95
 01022010 22:01
(Original post by Simplicity)
Hmmm, but still generally it is taken as an axiom. Certainly, the book I use takes it as an axiom. Isn't that the axiom of choice? well ordering principle? 
boromir9111
 Follow
 35 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to boromir9111
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 96
 01022010 22:06
hhmmmmm

DFranklin
 Follow
 60 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 97
 01022010 22:48
(Original post by paronomase)
However, you could still say that my proof is incorrect, or at least partially correct. I just chose to take for granted that e^x is the only function so that f'=f and f(0)=1
At university you will prove this without having to make assumptions. (You will typically do some other slightly different dodgy things, but still...) 
 Follow
 98
 01022010 22:49
(Original post by DFranklin)
This allows something like e^x = 3 exp(x) (where exp(x) is the function we all know and love).
(That objection is easy to understand but also easy to work around. A bigger question: why do you think such a function exists? Why do you think it is unique?)
Incidentally, if you ignore those issues, it is somewhat cleaner to show that
So defining e as the real number such that would make that valid? (Since the function is then unique?)
I'm not doing wonders for the rigour of the UK system here.
(Just ran through the method you posted, is somewhat nicer.) 
DFranklin
 Follow
 60 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 99
 01022010 23:08
Scallym (and others):
The way this is normally done at university is essentially: define a function exp(x) (usually as a power series, though there are other methods). Show that exp'(x) = exp(x) and exp(0) = 1. From there you can differentiate exp(x)/exp(x+y) and so on.
Note that we *don't* say that exp(x) = e^x. One big reason for this is that it's actually very hard to define what a^x is if x is not rational, let alone if x is complex.
So we have this function exp(x) that behaves very much how we think e^x should behave, and then we define e^x = exp(x), and more generally a^x = exp(x log a). Of course, what we need to do at this point is justify that this really does make sense and do what we think it should, and it's this that most university courses gloss over a bit. (Partly because it's not obvious how heavily you should justify it).
Now, from some of what paranomose was saying, I was taking it that he (and by extension people replying to him) were going in the same direction as the university route, but being a little sloppy in talking about e^x instead of exp(x). That is, e^x is "some function" with nice derivative properties, but NOT necessarily the "raise e to the power of x" function. (Because if we knew it was, then it's automatic that e^x e^y = e^(x+y), pretty much by definition of the power function. (Some faffing with passing from x,y rational to irrational in the limit if you want to be hugely pedantic)).
In which case any multiple y=A exp(x) satisfies dy/dx = y, so you don't know that exp(0) = 1 unless you prove it, which was my objection.
Note this has nothing to do with the value of 'e' itself. If you have y = A a^x and you want dy/dx = y, you're forced to have a = e, there's no room for choosing something else. (But A can be anything). 
generalebriety
 Follow
 15 followers
 14 badges
 Send a private message to generalebriety
 Wiki Support Team
Offline14ReputationRep:Wiki Support Team Follow
 100
 01022010 23:23
(Original post by Scallym)
(On a serious note, am I misguided in thinking manchester is reasonably respected for maths?)
Reply
Submit reply
Related discussions:
 Any mature students on here who have gone back to study A ...
 What A Levels are you taking, and what University Course do ...
 Alevels for doctor & lawyer?
 Why do non RG's have such high grade requirements?
 The "Am I good enough for Investment Banking/Consultancy?" ...
 Need ideas ...What do you think I should study as my degree?
 What reactions do you get from people when you tell them ...
 The "Am I good enough for Investment Banking/Consultancy?" ...
 Why study languages at uni?
 mean things you were told when you decided you wanted to ...
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 TSR Moderator
 Nirgilis
 usycool1
 Changing Skies
 James A
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 randdom
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 The Financier
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 Reality Check
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 LeCroissant
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Moltenmo
 Labrador99
Updated: February 2, 2010
Share this discussion:
Tweet