14

What is the closed form for:

$$\frac{\partial^n}{\partial x^n}\exp(f(x))=\exp(f(x))\cdot[????]$$

JFNJr
  • 1,095

5 Answers5

10

See the Wikipedia articles titled Exponential formula and Faà di Bruno's formula. Both involve enumerations of set partitions.

It's simpler to express with $\dfrac{\partial^n}{\partial x_1\,\partial x_2\,\cdots\,\partial x_n}$ than with $\dfrac{\partial^n}{\partial x^n}$, but after doing that, just declare $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ to be all the same variable and then drop the subscripts and collect like terms. So for example: \begin{align} & \frac{\partial^3}{\partial x_1\,\partial x_2\,\partial x_3} e^{f(x)} \\[10pt] & = e^{f(x)}\left(\frac{\partial^3 f(x)}{\partial x_1\,\partial x_2\,\partial x_3} \right. \\[10pt] & {} + \underbrace{\frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x_1} \cdot \frac{\partial^2 f(x)}{\partial x_2\,\partial x_3}} + \underbrace{\frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x_2} \cdot \frac{\partial^2 f(x)}{\partial x_2\,\partial x_3}} + \underbrace{\frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x_3} \cdot \frac{\partial^2 f(x)}{\partial x_1\,\partial x_2}} \\[10pt] & \left.{} + \frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x_1} \cdot \frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x_2} \cdot \frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x_3} \right). \end{align}

You get one term for each partition of the set of three variables. For the fourth derivative, there's one for each of the $15$ partitions of the set of four variables, etc.

Consequently $$ \frac{\partial^3 f(x)}{\partial x^3} = e^{f(x)}\left( \frac{\partial^3 f(x)}{\partial x^3} + 3 \frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x}\cdot\frac{\partial^2 f(x)}{\partial x^2} + \left( \frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x} \right)^3 \right), $$ and similarly with the fourth derivative the sum of the coefficients is $15$, etc.

Later note: Here's a summary of the proof: Mathematical induction on the order of the derivative.

  • You gave it more thinking than I did :P but yes, brilliant solution. +1 – Patrick Da Silva May 20 '13 at 16:57
  • @PatrickDaSilva : Thank you. – Michael Hardy May 20 '13 at 22:27
  • ....um.... I think we're going to have to regard "$f(x)$" as a function of all $3$, or all $n, variables. – Michael Hardy May 20 '13 at 22:27
  • I admit that I feel you have the exact formula to compute this because I computed the first few examples and it looks right, but I don't understand how to go in the details. How do you define a function $g(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ such that $g(x,\dots,x) = f(x)$ and everything "works" nicely? – Patrick Da Silva May 20 '13 at 22:35
  • @PatrickDaSilva : I'm not so sure that's really necessary. You just need to know that the same argument that works when you differentiate with respect to $x_{n+1}$ in the inductive step also works if $x_{n+1}$ happens to be one of $x_1,\ldots,x_n$. – Michael Hardy May 20 '13 at 23:13
  • My question was more like... "what's the inductive step"? – Patrick Da Silva May 20 '13 at 23:37
  • I wrote something about this on another occasion. (I mangled the formula on the first page but got it right later in the paper.): http://www.combinatorics.org/ojs/index.php/eljc/article/view/v13i1r1/pdf – Michael Hardy May 20 '13 at 23:42
  • I believe the right way to formally do that inductive step is to write $g(x_1,\dots,x_n) = \frac{x_1+\dots+x_n}n$ and to consider $e^{f(g(x_1,\dots,x_n))}$. Computing $\frac{\partial^n}{\partial x_1 \dots \partial x_n} e^{f(g(x_1,\dots,x_n))}$ will allow us to have the appropriate combinatorial interpretation times a factor of $\frac 1{n^n}$ that will appear on each term, but we can apply the chain rule and get rid of that $n^n$ factor on the other hand. The chain rule will allow us to write $\frac{\partial^n}{\partial g^n} e^{f(g)}$ and we will recover our identity there. – Patrick Da Silva May 20 '13 at 23:55
5

So we know that if $f,g$ are infinitely differentiable, we can compute $$ \frac{d}{dx} \left( e^{f(x)} g(x) \right) = \left( f'(x) e^{f(x)} \right) g(x) + e^{f(x)} g'(x) = e^{f(x)} \left( f'(x) g(x) + g'(x) \right). $$ So since $e^{f(x)} = e^{f(x)} \left( 1 \right)$ and that we know that all derivatives of $e^{f(x)}$ are going to be of the form $e^{f(x)}g(x)$ for some functions $g$, we can apply the above formula and assume that $$ \frac {d^n}{dx^n} e^{f(x)} = e^{f(x)} g_n(x), \qquad g_0(x) = 1. $$ We can use the formula found above to find a recurrence relation for $g_n(x)$ : $$ g_n(x) = f'(x) g_{n-1}(x) + g_{n-1}'(x), \qquad g_0(x) $$ The formula from Wolfram Alpha provided by Integral looks wrong because there should be no $f(x)^j$ in there ; it's impossible to make the function $f$ appear in the factor because all derivatives of $e^{f(x)}$ have the derivatives of $f$ appear in the factor (i.e. the function $g_n$), but never the function $f$ itself.

If you wanted this for yourself to compute higher derivatives of $e^{f(x)}$ I suggest you just apply the recurrence relation to get the first few. For a general formula I must admit I don't know. Would require more thinking.

  • It may only look wrong because 1) some powers of $f$ are compensated by $f^j$ which comes next and 2) there are many similar terms in the double sum which can cancel each other. – Start wearing purple May 20 '13 at 16:16
  • I really didn't understand your comment to be honest. It looks wrong to me because there should be no power of $f$ at all in the expression of the derivatives... – Patrick Da Silva May 20 '13 at 17:48
  • of course. What I'm saying is that, although at first sight Wolfram answer contains terms containing powers of $f$, such terms may cancel each other in the sum. – Start wearing purple May 20 '13 at 18:05
  • @O.L. What I'm saying is even if it was right, it "feels" wrong because when I look at that formula I almost feel like I'm better off computing it by hand. I mean, there's a sum of sums in there. That must be a hell of a lot cancellation ; I believed there was a more brilliant way to think about this ; Michael Hardy found it. – Patrick Da Silva May 20 '13 at 20:22
  • 1
    Well I completely agree with that - it is clear from the very beginning that the most efficient formula should be given by a sum over partitions. – Start wearing purple May 20 '13 at 20:39
3

I dont know how to get this result, but check wolfram's solution. It's exactly what you are looking for.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=d%5En%2Fdx%5En%28e%5E%28f%28x%29%29%29

Integral
  • 6,674
3

Related problem:(I), (II). Here is a formula for the $n$th derivative of the function $e^{\sin(x)}$

$$\left( e^{\sin(x)}\right)^{(n)}={{ i}^{{n} }}\ e^{\sin ( x )} \sum _{k=0}^{n} \sum _{j=0}^{n-k}\sum _{m = 0 }^{k} \frac{\left(-1 \right)^{n-k-m} {i}^{{ j + m}} }{{2}^{(j+m)}} {n\choose k} \left\{\matrix{n-k\\j}\right\} \left\{\matrix{k\\m}\right\} {\rm e}^{ i x (m - j)}\\ n \in \mathbb{N},\, i = \sqrt{-1}. $$

where $\left\{\matrix{n\\k}\right\}$ are Stirling numbers of the second kind.

Note: I'll appreciate if someone is interested in verifying this formula with Maple or Mathematica. I already tried it with Maple and it should be fine.

2

This is a simple application of Faà di Bruno's formula.

$$\partial_x^n e^{f(x)}=e^{f(x)}\sum \frac{n!}{\prod_{j=1}^n m_j!\,j!^{m_j}}\cdot \prod_{j=1}^nf^{(j)}(x)^{m_j},$$

where the sum is over all $n$-tuples $(m_1,\dots,m_n)\in{\Bbb N}^n$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^nj\,m_j=n$.

  • For more information on the Faa di Bruno formula and the partial Bell polynomials, please refer to the review article: Feng Qi, Da-Wei Niu, Dongkyu Lim, and Yong-Hong Yao, Special values of the Bell polynomials of the second kind for some sequences and functions, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 491 (2020), no. 2, Paper No. 124382, 31 pages; available online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2020.124382. – qifeng618 Apr 28 '25 at 01:32