Exponential Functions and Graphs
Learning goals
- Write with the variable in the exponent
- Test equal ratios over equal steps, not equal differences
- Derive the rational values from the single number
- Require and , and say why
- Describe the parent graph, asymptote and monotonicity
- Shift to and move the asymptote to
Adding versus multiplying
Put two machines side by side. Both start at . The first adds every time the input goes up by one; the second multiplies by every time the input goes up by one.
The adding row is the linear function . Its differences are constant: , , . Its ratios are not: , then , then , all different.
The multiplying row is the function . Now the tables trade places. Its differences are not constant (, then , then ), but its ratios are: , , .
That is the whole idea, and it deserves a name.
An exponential function is a function of the form
where the variable sits in the exponent and the base is a fixed number. (The restrictions on look arbitrary right now. Two sections from now you will see that they are forced.) Compare it with or , where the variable sits in the base and the exponent is fixed. Those are power functions, and they behave nothing like this.
Check the ratio for the general rule. Step the input up by one:
The cancels completely, so the answer does not depend on where you started. Take a step of size instead and the same cancellation gives . Equal steps in the input multiply the output by the same factor, everywhere along the curve. That property is the reason a bank account, a bacterial culture, and a cooling cup of coffee all end up with the same kind of formula. That same property is the one we are going to take as the definition.
It also gives you a test with teeth. Faced with a table of equally spaced inputs, divide neighbouring outputs rather than subtracting them. If every quotient is the same positive number other than , the data fits an exponential rule, and that quotient is , where is the spacing between the inputs. Only when the inputs step by one is the quotient the base itself, and the difference matters. If the inputs run and the outputs are , the constant quotient is , so the base is , not . If instead every difference is the same, the data is linear.
The two excluded quotients are worth naming. A constant quotient of repeats a single output forever, which is the constant function. And a constant negative quotient, as in , flips the sign at every step, which no positive base can do.
Worked example 1 Find the exponential through two points
An exponential function satisfies and . Find and .
The inputs and are three steps apart, so their outputs differ by the factor . Divide one equation by the other, and the unknown cancels:
A base is positive, so is the positive cube root of , which is .
Now put back into :
So . Check both points: and .
Notice what did the work. Dividing the two values killed and left a pure power of , which is exactly the cancellation that makes ratios, not differences, the natural tool for these functions.
Equal ratios force the law of exponents
So far is a formula we wrote down. Now let us do it the other way around, and demand the behaviour we want before we know any formula at all.
Suppose is a function defined for every real number , and we insist on exactly three things.
- It starts at , so . (A general starting value can be multiplied back in later.)
- A step multiplies. For each step size there is some factor , depending on the step but never on where you started, with for every input .
- No jumps, and no doubling back. The graph is one unbroken curve, so nudging the input a little only nudges the output a little. And when the base turns out to exceed , a bigger input always gives a bigger output.
That is all. We have not said the word exponent. The first two demands already pin down the law that governs everything that follows, and they will carry us all the way through the fractions. The third demand looks too obvious to be worth writing down, and we will spend it exactly once, at the very end, where it turns out to be indispensable. Watch for it.
The first two demands are the law of exponents in disguise#
Take the second demand, , and try it at the one input whose value we already know, namely . It says , and since by the first demand, this collapses to .
So the mystery multiplier was never a mystery. The factor by which a step of size multiplies the output is nothing other than the function’s own value at . Substituting back into the second demand gives
Rename as and the statement reads : adding inputs multiplies outputs. This is the law of exponents, and we did not assume it. It fell out of the single requirement that equal steps scale the output by the same factor.
One more piece of notation and we are ready to build. The function’s value at is the factor produced by a one-unit step, so it deserves the name base:
The next section shows that is not just an important value. It is the only input you get to choose. Every other value of is then forced.
Building the function one input at a time
We know two things about : its value at is , and . Watch how far that gets us, one kind of input at a time. It gets us further than you would guess, and it stops in an interesting place.
The first two demands force every rational value from the single number #
The function is never zero, and never negative. Cut any input in half and use the law:
A square is never negative, so for every . Could it be somewhere, say ? Then for any input we could write and get , so would be zero everywhere, contradicting . Therefore
That one line is the reason the graph never touches the -axis, and the reason we may always take a positive root below.
Positive integers. Apply the law repeatedly: , then , and each new step multiplies by one more . By induction, for every positive integer .
Zero. We already required , and the law leaves no alternative anyway: , and dividing by gives . So is a theorem, not a convention.
Negative integers. Since and add to ,
In particular . The negative exponent is not a rule someone invented; it is the only value that keeps the law of exponents true.
Fractions. Let be a positive integer. Adding to itself times gives , so applying the law times gives . So is a number whose -th power is , and we proved above that it is positive, so it is the positive -th root:
Stacking of those steps gives , which is exactly the rational exponent you met in the last chapter. Nothing new had to be defined. The law of exponents chose the definition for us.
And there it stops. Every rational input now has a forced value, and the first two demands have nothing more to say. The rationals are dense, so the graph is already a fine dust of points that only looks like a curve, and a dust is all it is. Between any two of those points there is an irrational number, and nothing proved so far says what the function does at . A rule for the rationals does not by itself decide the reals.
Filling the gaps, which is what the third demand is for. Trap between rationals and make the function inherit the trap. Take a base . Among rational exponents the values already climb, since for rationals we have , and a positive rational power of a number larger than is larger than . But climbing at the rationals says nothing about a value at , which is not one of them. That is the gap demand 3 closes: a bigger input gives a bigger output at every input, rational or not. So the value at is squeezed between the values at any two rationals that squeeze itself.
| rational bounds on the exponent | forced bounds on |
|---|---|
Every entry on the right is a value we already own: , and so on down the table. The intervals are nested and their widths shrink toward zero, so exactly one number survives all of them, and demand 3 says is that number. To four places it is .
A base between and needs no new work. There bigger rational exponents give smaller values, so every inequality above simply flips and the trap closes from the other side. Or you may avoid the bother entirely for such a base by writing and reading the value off the curve for the base , which exceeds . Either way, do this at every irrational input and the dust of rational points fuses into one unbroken curve.
Worked example 2 Evaluate at three inputs
Let . Find , , and .
The value at is forced by the law of exponents, not chosen:
For , read the denominator as a root and the numerator as a power. Taking the cube root first keeps the numbers small:
A negative exponent flips the value over, because :
Every one of these three answers is positive, as the proof above promised, and none of them required a new rule.
Check your understanding
A function takes only positive values and satisfies for all real and . If , what is ?
Work down from in halves. First, , and since is positive, .
Now halve again. , so
The base is , so the function is , and indeed .
Why the base must be positive and never one
The restrictions and were stated without justification earlier. Here is why each one is unavoidable.
A negative base breaks immediately. Suppose someone hands you and asks for the function . At whole-number inputs nothing looks wrong: and . But ask for . Squaring it would have to give , and no real number squares to a negative. So the function has no value at . The same failure repeats at , at , and at every fraction whose denominator is even once the fraction is written in lowest terms. So the graph is riddled with holes, and no unbroken curve exists to draw. (The lowest-terms wording is doing real work. Writing as does not rescue anything, but is just the whole number in disguise, and is perfectly fine.) A negative base is not merely inconvenient. It makes the function impossible.
A base of zero breaks too. With every positive input gives , which contradicts what we proved: an obeying the law of exponents with is never zero. And would ask for .
A base of is legal but empty. The function does satisfy , but it is the constant function , a horizontal line. It never grows, never decays, takes the same output for every input, and so has no inverse to undo it. Nothing exponential happens, so we exclude it by convention rather than by necessity.
That leaves with , which splits into exactly two behaviours: and .
The graph and what it tells you
Plot and on the same axes. They are not two unrelated shapes. Since , replacing by turns one into the other, and replacing by is precisely the reflection across the -axis you learned in the transformations lesson.
Read the picture against everything proved so far. Every statement in this list is about the parent curve ; the coefficient goes back in the next section, and it moves some of them.
- Domain. Every real number, because we built a value at integer, rational, and then irrational inputs.
- Range. All positive numbers. Nothing below the axis, since is never negative and never zero. And nothing positive is missed, because the curve is unbroken and climbs from values as close to as you like up to values as large as you like.
- The -intercept is always , whatever the base, because for every . The point is on the curve too, which is how you read the base off a graph.
- Horizontal asymptote . For the curve flattens toward the -axis on the left; for it does so on the right. It never arrives. This is a one-sided asymptote, unlike the two-sided approach you saw with rational functions.
- Monotonic. Under the standing assumptions ( and ) the function is strictly increasing exactly when , and strictly decreasing exactly when . There is no third case and no turning point anywhere.
That last bullet has a consequence worth its own display. A strictly increasing or strictly decreasing function never takes the same output twice, so an exponential function is one-to-one:
Read right to left it is obvious. Read left to right it is a tool: if you can write both sides of an equation as powers of the same base, you may simply equate the exponents.
Worked example 3 Solve
The bases and are different, so the one-to-one rule does not apply yet. But both are powers of , so rewrite each side over the base :
Now the equation reads , and since forces , the exponents must match:
Check it: and . They agree.
This trick only works because the two sides share a base. When they cannot be matched, for instance , no amount of rewriting will help, and a genuinely new function is needed to extract the exponent. That function is the subject of the next lesson.
Check your understanding
Solve for .
Write both sides over the base . Since , the right side is .
The equation is now , and an exponential function is one-to-one, so the exponents must be equal.
Check: and .
Shifting and stretching
Everything you learned about transforming graphs applies here without change. The general transformed exponential is
and each constant does its usual job: shifts horizontally, shifts vertically, and stretches vertically (flipping the curve upside down when is negative). The one thing to watch is the asymptote. The parent curve hugs , so adding carries the asymptote with it, up to . The range follows: all when , and all when .
There is one surprise, and it belongs to exponentials alone. Watch what a horizontal shift really does:
Since is just a positive constant, sliding an exponential sideways is the same as stretching it vertically. Shifting three units right multiplies it by , so the “shifted” curve is the original squashed to one eighth of its height. No parabola behaves like that: sliding sideways genuinely moves its vertex. And the correspondence runs both ways, because the range of is all positive numbers, so every stretch factor equals for exactly one . Naming that is a job we cannot yet do, and it is the reason the next lesson exists.
Worked example 4 Analyze
Take the pieces one at a time.
Asymptote. As runs off to the left, shrinks toward , so shrinks toward as well and approaches . The horizontal asymptote is .
Direction. The parent increases, and multiplying by flips it, so is decreasing. As grows, falls without bound.
Range. The factor is always strictly positive, so is always strictly negative, and stays below . The range is all .
Intercepts. The -intercept is
For the -intercept set and use the same-base rule:
So the curve falls through and , and then keeps falling toward while never rising above the line on its way left.
Check your understanding
What is the horizontal asymptote of ?
The asymptote comes from the vertical shift, not from the coefficient in front. As runs off to the left, shrinks toward , so does too.
The asymptote is . The distractor is the -intercept , which is a point on the curve, not a line it approaches.
Nothing polynomial keeps up
A doubling function starts small. At , while , so the humble parabola is ahead. It stays ahead for a while, and then it loses forever.
Why can the parabola never recover? Because of the ratio property, applied one step at a time.
For every integer , #
Argue by induction on .
At the two sides are equal, since and . That is the base case, and it is the last moment the parabola is level with the exponential.
Now suppose for some integer . Taking one more step doubles the left side, so
It remains to show that this doubled square is still at least , and that is a plain quadratic inequality. Subtracting, , and for we have , so this quantity is at least , comfortably positive. Therefore , and stringing the two inequalities together gives , which is the claim for . By induction it holds for every integer .
The proof also shows why, and the reason is exactly the property this lesson started from. One step to the right multiplies by , no matter where you are on the curve. The same step multiplies by , which is at most once , and which keeps sliding toward as grows. A fixed factor of against a shrinking factor tending to can end only one way.
Nothing in that argument was special to the square. Against the exponential falls behind for a long time (at , is about a million while is about ten trillion). But the step factor of also decays toward , so somewhere between and the exponential passes it and is gone. And the reason no polynomial can imitate an exponential in the first place is that constant ratios are not something a polynomial can produce.
No nonconstant polynomial has a constant ratio over a unit step#
Suppose some polynomial of degree satisfied for a fixed number and every . (This is the exponential property, since it says a one-unit step always scales the output by the same factor .)
Compare leading coefficients. Write the leading term of as , with because has degree . Then expanding shows the leading term of is as well, since the extra only feeds the lower-degree terms. The leading term of , on the other hand, is . Equal polynomials have equal coefficients, so , and dividing by forces .
So the supposed scale factor is , which means for every , that is, the polynomial is identically zero. But we can read off the degree of . The leading terms cancel, and the next coefficient comes from , so has as the coefficient of . A polynomial with a nonzero coefficient is not the zero polynomial, and a nonzero polynomial has only finitely many roots, so cannot vanish for every .
The two conclusions contradict each other, so no such polynomial exists. The zero polynomial has no ratio to speak of, because dividing by decides nothing. Setting the zero polynomial aside, only a constant polynomial can have a constant ratio over a unit step, and a constant is not much of a function. Every genuinely exponential behaviour in nature therefore needs a genuinely new function, which is the one we built.