How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
For a natural the function is differentiable everywhere with derivative ; for it is the constant , with derivative ; for a natural the function is differentiable at every with derivative ; consequently every polynomial function is differentiable at every real, with the derivative computed term by term
Statement
Powers are those of Integer powers , and is the canonical natural of The canonical natural of a field, so that and . Let .
- The function , , is the constant function , and it is differentiable at every with (The derivative of at a point that is a limit point of , and differentiability on a set).
- For the function , , is differentiable at every , and
- For put . The function , , is differentiable at every as a function on , and
- Let with for , and let be the polynomial function (Finite sums and finite products, by recursion). Then is differentiable at every , and, defining by and for ,
Claim 2 is stated for and not for , and that is not timidity. At its right-hand side reads , and is not defined at (Integer powers ), so the formula is not a statement about the whole line. Claim 1 is what covers , and it says the derivative is there, which is what the informal reading "" is reaching for. The same shift is why the term of claim 4 is defined to be outright rather than by the formula.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A natural , a real , and the functions , and of the statement.
Powers (Integer powers ): and for every and ; for and ; and for .
Canonical naturals (The canonical natural of a field): , , and hence .
Algebra of derivatives (Sums, scalar multiples, products and quotients: , , , and when ): at a limit point of the common domain, sums, scalar multiples and products of functions differentiable at are differentiable at with the four stated formulas, and if the denominator is nonzero at then the quotient, restricted to the set where the denominator does not vanish, is differentiable at with the quotient formula; that restricted set has as a limit point.
Derivative and difference quotient (The derivative of at a point that is a limit point of , and differentiability on a set): is differentiable at a limit point of its domain exactly when the difference quotient , a function on , has a limit at , and is that limit. A constant function on a set having as a limit point has : given a real , any real serves, since (The - limit of at a limit point of ).
Induction principle on (The principle of mathematical induction).
Finite sums (Finite sums and finite products, by recursion): and .
Integer exponent laws for a nonzero base (Laws of integer exponents): for every when ; and for integers one has , and .
Every real is a limit point of , punctured neighbourhoods in being never empty (Limit point, isolated point, adherent point, derived set, and dense subset of , The -neighbourhood and the punctured -neighbourhood of a point of ).
Proof
Base case, claim 2 at . By [L1], , so is the identity. Fix ; for every the difference quotient is , so it is the constant function on , and by [L4] and [L8] its limit at is . Since by [L1] and [L2], claim 2 holds at .
Inductive hypothesis. Fix a natural and assume that is differentiable at every with .
Claim 1. By [L1] the function is the constant function . Fix ; for every its difference quotient is , the constant function on , whose limit at is by [L4] and [L8]. So is differentiable at every with .
Successor step. Let . By [L1], for every . Both factors are differentiable at , by step 1.2 and step 1.1, so the product rule of [L3] gives that is differentiable at with . Now by [L1], so the right-hand side is by [L2].
Claim 2. Steps 1.1 and 2.1 are the base case and the successor step of an induction over the naturals , so by [L5] the function is differentiable at every with , for every natural .
Claim 3. Let . The set is exactly : a nonzero has by [L7], and by [L1]. Fix . The constant function on is differentiable at with derivative by step 1.3, and is differentiable at with derivative by step 3.1, with . So the quotient rule of [L3] applies: the function on , which by [L1] and [L7] is , is differentiable at with derivative , where and are [L7].
Claim 4, by a second induction on . Fix and the sequence . At the sum is for every by [L6], so is the constant function and, as in step 1.3, . Suppose the claim holds at , and let . By [L6], for every , where . The function is differentiable at with derivative : for it is the constant , of derivative , by step 1.3 and the scalar rule of [L3]; for it is the scalar multiple , of derivative , by step 3.1 and the scalar rule of [L3]. The inductive hypothesis gives , so the sum rule of [L3] gives that is differentiable at with by [L6]. By [L5] claim 4 holds for every .
All four claims are established: claim 1 by step 1.3, claim 2 by step 3.1, claim 3 by step 4.1 and claim 4 by step 4.2.
Remarks
-
Why the induction starts at and not at . The successor step multiplies by the identity, and the identity is ; starting at would require the formula of claim 2 to hold at , which it does not, since is undefined at . The two statements are therefore kept apart, and claim 1 is proved on its own from the definition. This is the same index care that The canonical natural of a field records for families of reciprocals: contains , and a formula written for "" is a claim about unless it says otherwise.
-
The negative exponents cost nothing extra. Claim 3 is the quotient rule of Sums, scalar multiples, products and quotients: , , , and when applied with numerator the constant , and the domain it produces, the set where does not vanish, is exactly ; no separate argument and no separate limit is needed. Rational exponents are a different matter, resting on Existence and uniqueness of -th roots: a unique with , and are treated on the companion page rather than here.
-
Claim 4 is a statement about a finite sum, not about an infinite one. Nothing here says anything about differentiating a series term by term; that is a separate question, needing hypotheses about convergence that this page does not have and does not assume.
Depends on
- The derivative $f'(c) = \lim_{x \to c} \frac{f(x) - f(c)}{x - c}$ of $f : A \to \mathbb{R}$ at a point $c \in A$ that is a limit point of $A$, and differentiability on a set
- Sums, scalar multiples, products and quotients: $(f+g)'(c) = f'(c) + g'(c)$, $(\alpha f)'(c) = \alpha f'(c)$, $(fg)'(c) = f'(c)g(c) + f(c)g'(c)$, and $(f/g)'(c) = \bigl(f'(c)g(c) - f(c)g'(c)\bigr)/g(c)^{2}$ when $g(c) \ne 0$
- Integer powers $a^m$
- Laws of integer exponents
- The canonical natural $\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F$ of a field
- The principle of mathematical induction
- Finite sums and finite products, by recursion
- The $\varepsilon$-$\delta$ limit $\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = L$ of $f : A \to \mathbb{R}$ at a limit point $c$ of $A$
- Limit point, isolated point, adherent point, derived set, and dense subset of $\mathbb{R}$
- The $\varepsilon$-neighbourhood and the punctured $\varepsilon$-neighbourhood of a point of $\mathbb{R}$
Used by
- A curve for which the mean value inequality is an equality, showing the constant cannot be improved Counterexample
- A function differentiable on [0,1] whose derivative is unbounded, hence not Riemann integrable Counterexample
- An invertible derivative at one point does not give a local inverse without C¹ regularity Counterexample
- Continuous f and integrable sign-changing g with ∫ₐᵇ fg ≠ f(ξ)∫ₐᵇ g for every ξ Counterexample
- Continuous fₙ → 0 pointwise on [0,1] with ∫₀¹ fₙ = 1 for every n Counterexample
- Dropping injectivity double-counts under x↦ x² on two disjoint intervals Counterexample
- f(t) = (t², t³) on [0,1]: no ξ satisfies f(1)-f(0) = f'(ξ) Counterexample
- L'Hôpital's conclusion does not imply convergence of the derivative quotient Counterexample
- With f(x) = x³ and g(x) = x² on [-1,1] the quotient form f(b)-f(a)/g(b)-g(a) = f'(c)/g'(c) is meaningless because g(b) = g(a), while the product form of Cauchy's theorem still holds Counterexample
- x/(1+(k+1)²x²) converges uniformly to zero on ℝ while every derivative at zero equals one Counterexample
- ∫₀¹ xᵐ = 1/ι(m+1), computed by the fundamental theorem and checked against the definition Example
- A bounded C¹ periodic oscillator made from a quartic Hermite spline Example
- A convergent sequence in ℝ³ and the integral ∫₀¹ (1, t, t²), computed componentwise Example
- A differentiable function whose derivative is discontinuous Example
- For a natural n ≥ 1, the derivative of x ↦ x^1/n on (0,∞) is 1/ι(n)x^1/n - 1, obtained from the inverse rule applied to x ↦ xⁿ; in particular (√x)' = 1/(ι(2)√x) Example
- For every k≥0, xᵏ|x| is Cᵏ but not Cᵏ⁺¹ Example
- H(x) = 2√x on [0,1]: H is continuous, H' is unbounded on (0,1], and H' is therefore not Riemann integrable Example
- L'Hôpital evaluates lim_x→1(x³-x)/(x²-1) as 1 Example
- Polar change of variables on a compact annular sector gives the Jacobian factor r and its area Example
- The chain rule applied to x ↦ (x²+1)⁵ and to x ↦ ((3x-1)²+2)³, with the Carathéodory factor written out in closed form in the first case Example
- The functions x⁴, -x⁴, and x³ show that f''(0)=0 is inconclusive Example
- The integral test applied to ∑ 1/ι(k+1)ᵖ for rational p>0, cross-checked against the published p-series theorem Example
- The polynomial map (x,y)↦(1+x+2y+x², 2x+3y+xy) and its Jacobian Example
- The Taylor polynomial of (1-x)⁻¹ at 0 has the exact geometric remainder xⁿ⁺¹/(1-x) Example
- The unit circle is locally a C¹ graph at every point Example
- Worked derivatives from the algebra of derivatives and the power rule: (3x⁴ - 5x + 2)' = 12x³ - 5, and the quotient rule applied to (x²+1)/(x-1) on ℝ ∖ {1} Example
- x ↦ x³ is increasing on ℝ although its derivative vanishes at 0, which is the witness for the false statement that a vanishing derivative forbids strict increase, and which makes its inverse non-differentiable at 0 Example
- x↦ x³ changes from concave to convex at zero and has an inflection point there Example
- FALSE: if f'(c) = 0 then f is not increasing on any interval containing c False statement
- FALSE: if u and v are differentiable on [a,b] then ∫ₐᵇ uv' = u(b)v(b)-u(a)v(a)-∫ₐᵇ u'v False statement
- Taylor polynomials match the prescribed derivatives at the centre Lemma
- What is fixed here and what is not: the derivative is taken at a point of the domain that is also a limit point of it, one-sided derivatives and derivatives of order above one are not introduced at this point in the reading order, and f'(c) and df/dx(c) name the same real number Remark
- Darboux's theorem: every derivative has the intermediate-value property Theorem
- Inside its radius a real power series may be differentiated term by term, and the differentiated series has the same radius Theorem
- Peano's form: the normalized Taylor remainder tends to zero Theorem
- Picard iteration from 1 produces the exponential partial sums Theorem
- Taylor's Schlömilch–Roche remainder formula Theorem
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 85 results over 26 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Power rule (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- W. Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed., Ch. 5 (standard reference, not scraped)
- J. Lebl, Basic Analysis I, §4.1 (standard reference, not scraped)
- J. Lebl, Basic Analysis I, The Derivative (standard reference, not scraped)