Proof
Prerequisite proofs used below
Fix an integer and the Euclidean norm on . A set is bounded if it lies in some finite-radius ball, closed if its complement is open, and compact if every cover by open subsets of has a finite subcover. We use real completeness, including the nested closed interval property.
Heine–Borel in finite-dimensional Euclidean space
Theorem. A set is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded. The empty set satisfies all three properties.
Compact implies bounded. The open balls , an integer, cover . A finite subcover puts inside the largest of these balls.
Compact implies closed. Suppose and . The balls , , cover . Choose a finite subcover with centers and set . If lies in the ball centered at , the triangle inequality gives . Hence misses , so the complement is open.
Closed and bounded implies compact. Let nonempty be closed and bounded. Enclose it in a closed cube with . Suppose an open cover of has no finite subcover. Divide each coordinate interval into two closed halves. The resulting closed subcubes cover . At least one subcube has intersection with that is not finitely coverable by the given family; otherwise the finite union of the finite subcovers would cover . Select such a subcube and repeat. This produces nested closed cubes with side length and not finitely coverable, hence nonempty.
For each coordinate, the nested interval property gives a common coordinate value. Together these give . Every pair of points in has distance at most , so the intersection contains only . Choose . Then . A closed set contains such a limit: if were in its open complement, a ball around would eventually contain outside , a contradiction. Thus .
One member of the cover contains , and openness gives for some . For sufficiently large , every point of is within of , so alone covers . This contradicts the selection of . Therefore every open cover has a finite subcover. The number is finite; replacing it by infinitely many subpieces would invalidate this argument.
Continuous images and extreme values
Theorem. If is compact and is continuous relative to , then is compact. In particular, a continuous on nonempty compact is bounded and attains its maximum and minimum.
Proof. An open cover of pulls back to relatively open sets , with open in . These cover , so finitely many suffice. Their corresponding cover , proving compactness. For scalar , the image is nonempty, closed and bounded by the theorem already proved in dimension one. Let . For each , the definition of supremum supplies with . Then , and closedness places in the image. Thus the maximum is attained. Applying the same argument to gives the minimum. This proves existence, not a formula for the maximizing input.
Fermat's necessary condition. At a differentiable interior local maximum or minimum, .
Proof. At a local maximum, sufficiently small positive increments give nonpositive difference quotients and negative increments give nonnegative ones. A two-sided derivative can satisfy both sign limits only by being zero. Negating the function treats a minimum.
The interior hypothesis matters: on has extrema at endpoints despite derivative 1. The converse fails: has zero derivative at zero but no extremum there.
Rolle's theorem. If , is continuous on , differentiable on and , then for some .
Proof. The extreme-value theorem supplies maximum and minimum. If the function is constant, every interior point works. Otherwise a value differs from the equal endpoint values, so either a maximum or a minimum occurs in the interior. Fermat's condition applies there.
Mean value theorem. Under the same continuity and differentiability hypotheses but without equal endpoint values, some satisfies .
Subtract the secant line from and apply Rolle. This proves the theorem without assuming is continuous. Consequences include: derivative zero on an interval makes the function constant; nonnegative derivative makes it nondecreasing; and on an interval gives for points in it. An interval-wide derivative bound cannot be inferred from one derivative value.
For a sequence , define
allowing the value . The tail suprema are nonincreasing, so their infimum is their extended limit. Two consequences are needed.
- If , then eventually. Indeed some tail supremum is below ; otherwise their infimum would be at least .
- If , then for infinitely many indices. Otherwise a tail would have every term at most , forcing its supremum and hence to be at most .
These statements remain useful when the original sequence has no limit. A finite number of unusually large terms affects some early tail suprema, but not .
Proof of the convergent ratio case. Suppose for all sufficiently large and . Choose strictly larger than this limsup. For some , every satisfies . Iterating gives
The geometric series converges, so comparison proves convergence of the absolute tail. A finite prefix does not affect convergence; hence converges absolutely. A uniform conclusion for a family of series requires a bound valid uniformly in the input.
For real functions on a nonempty set , uniform convergence means , with the errors eventually finite. Uniform Cauchy means every has such that for all and all . If , the epsilon–N conditions are vacuously satisfied; no real supremum of the empty set is used.
Theorem: uniform completeness
A sequence of real-valued functions is uniformly convergent if and only if it is uniformly Cauchy.
Proof. Uniform convergence gives the Cauchy estimate by two errors of size . Conversely, uniform Cauchy implies that for each fixed , is a real Cauchy sequence, so define . Fix and use uniform Cauchy with tolerance . For every and , pass in the estimate to get . The same works everywhere, proving uniform convergence. Completeness of the target supplied the pointwise limits.
Theorem
Uniform limit preserves continuity
If each is continuous at relative to and uniformly on , then is continuous at .
Proof
The three-term estimate
Given , choose so for all . By continuity of the fixed function at , choose so whenever . Then
Derivative interchange without hypotheses
Theorem
Let . Suppose every is continuous on and differentiable on . If converges at one fixed and converges uniformly on to , then converges uniformly on to a continuous , differentiable on , and . Continuity of the individual derivatives is not required.
Proof of existence. Uniform convergence of derivatives makes them uniformly Cauchy. For sufficiently large, the mean value theorem applied to between and any gives
The anchor sequence is Cauchy, so the right side is uniformly small. Uniform completeness gives a uniform limit , which is continuous as a uniform limit of continuous functions.
Proof of the derivative identity. Fix an interior point and . Choose with for all interior and all , and also . For sufficiently small nonzero , apply the mean value theorem to on the segment from to :
Pass at these two fixed inputs. The same inequality holds with replacing . Since the fixed is differentiable at , its difference quotient is within of for small enough . The triangle inequality bounds the difference quotient of from by . Arbitrary proves differentiability and equality. This argument does not integrate , so it does not silently assume continuous or Riemann integrable.
Theorem
Intermediate value theorem
If is continuous on and lies between and , there is with .
Proof
Completeness locates a crossing
If or , take the corresponding endpoint. Otherwise, assume ; the reverse order follows by replacing both by and by . The set is nonempty and bounded above. Let . If , continuity gives nearby points to the right with value below ; since , this contradicts the upper-bound property. If , continuity gives a neighbourhood of with value above ; the supremum approximation property supplies an element of in that neighbourhood, a contradiction. Thus .
Learning goals and allowed earlier results
Construct rather than assume an elementary function, prove its algebraic laws, and justify the logarithm as an inverse. We use the previously proved ratio test, uniform convergence of power and derivative series on compact intervals, the mean value theorem, and the intermediate value theorem.
Define
For fixed , the ratio of successive absolute terms is , so the series converges absolutely; at it equals one directly. On any fixed interval , both its series and derivative series have summable factorial majorants. The uniform derivative theorem therefore applies to polynomial partial sums and gives everywhere, with .
Theorem: positivity and exponential law
For every real , , , and .
Proof. Differentiate to obtain . The mean value theorem makes constant; at zero it equals one. Thus never vanishes. Since it is continuous and , an intermediate-value argument prevents it from becoming negative anywhere, proving positivity and the reciprocal identity. For fixed , differentiate ; the same cancellation gives zero derivative. At zero , so . Multiplication by yields the addition law. No rearrangement of a double infinite series was needed.
Since , it is strictly increasing. For , all terms are nonnegative and , so at positive infinity. The reciprocal identity gives at negative infinity. Continuity and monotonicity therefore make a bijection.
Define , , and as its inverse. The inverse is continuous: if , then for any , ; taking within the smaller output gap confines between those inputs.
Theorem: logarithmic derivative and laws
For , . For positive and real , and , where is defined as .
Proof. Write , and use inverse continuity to ensure as . Then
The exponential law gives , and uniqueness of inverse values proves the product law. The real-power definition and inverse identity give the other formula. Differentiating that definition yields for . This derivation did not first assume the real-power derivative to define the logarithm.
Worked examples and quantitative estimates
Approximating the constructed constant. The partial sum through gives . For the tail starting at , write . Since , the tail is at most . Thus . This is a legitimate simple bound, though sharper factorial estimates are available.
An integral definition emerges afterwards. Since and , the fundamental theorem gives for every . One could instead begin with that integral and construct its inverse, but using both definitions without proving their equivalence would be circular. Here the equality follows from already established derivatives.
Graded practice
- Foundation. Prove and for positive integers from the addition law.
- Core. Show for all real , not only .
- Core. For , , derive the derivative of and of .
- Proof. Prove uniqueness of the differentiable solution of , on , using the constructed .
Full solutions
- The addition law gives . Inductively , so the integer formula follows with base .
- Since , the function is convex. Its support line at zero is , giving the inequality globally. Alternatively minimize by its derivative and strict monotonicity of .
- The chain rule gives . The constant denominator is nonzero, so for .
- For any solution , differentiate : its derivative is . The mean value theorem makes it constant equal to one at zero. Thus . This proves uniqueness without dividing by a potentially zero candidate solution.
Summary and term definitions
A construction defines an object from previously established ones and proves its required properties. An inverse function requires bijectivity onto the declared codomain. An initial-value condition fixes a differential equation's normalization. Power-series convergence, uniform derivative control and real completeness together support the exponential construction; algebraic laws and logarithmic rules are conclusions, not unproved inputs.