(a) By definition,
f′(x)=h→0limhf(x+h)−f(x). Using the fact that f(x)=ax along with ax+h=ax⋅ah, we have
f′(x)=h→0limhf(x+h)−f(x)=h→0limhax+h−ax=h→0limhax⋅ah−ax=h→0limhax(ah−1), where the last equality follows by removing the common factor of ax from each term in the numerator.
(b) Since ax does not depend at all on h, we may treat ax as constant in the noted limit. Thus,
f′(x)=h→0limhax(ah−1)=ax⋅h→0limhah−1. Note that this tells us that the derivative of ax is some constant multiple of ax (and that the constant's values must be limh→0hah−1.)
(c) Using h=±0.0001, it appears that when a=2, L≈0.6931, while when a=3, L≈1.0986.
(d) By experimenting, we see first that a≈2.7 (for which L≈0.993, so a needs to be slightly bigger than 2.7). Continuing to try values of a that result in L being closer and closer to 1, we find a≈2.71828 (for which L≈1.000)
(e) We note that ln(2)≈0.6931 and ln(3)≈1.0986. Since these values correspond to the values of
h→0limhah−1
when a=2 and a=3, we conjecture that
dxd[2x]=2x⋅ln(2)
and
dxd[3x]=3x⋅ln(3)
(f) Our work suggests that dxd[ax]=ax⋅ln(a), and when a=e≈2.71828, it follows that
dxd[ex]=ex⋅ln(e)=ex
Thus, ex is a very special function: its derivative is itself!