Theorem; Let ‘ f ’ be a real function of a real variable f : R  R, and let ‘ f ’ have

the property that it is everywhere continuous on its domain. Suppose ‘ f ’ is

‘ n  differentiable ’ on any open subset U of its domain. Then we have that the
k  th derivative of ‘ f ’ can be written as an alternating series in terms of the function
‘ f ’ that is given by;

k
k 
 (1)  i  f ( x  (k  i)x)
i

 
f x   lim
(k ) i 0
x 0 . Where; 0  k  n and, n  n.
(x) k
Representing, the k  th infinitesimal variation of the function ‘ f ’, in a very small
neighborhood of the point ‘ x ’, with x  U .

Proof A demonstration of the truth of the above theorem on particular cases shall be
done. However, the demonstration will be done with as much as possible rigour so that,
the theorem may be considered rigorously proved.

From hypothesis, our function ‘ f ’ is “ n  differentiable ” and as such, its

derivatives exist up to order 'n' . Whence, by first principle, we can obtain the first
derivative of the function ‘ f ’ by evaluating the following limit;

f ( x  x)  f ( x)
limx0 if it exists.
x

However;

f ( x  x)  f ( x)
f (1) ( x)  limx0 . (Which exists from hypothesis with 1  n )….. (1.)
x

From this, we envisage to express the higher order derivatives of ‘ f ’ strictly in terms of
‘ f ’, as in the case of the first derivative, at least up to order ‘ n ’
By definition;

f (1) ( x  x)  f (1) ( x)

f ( 2) ( x)  limx0 with 2  n …..(2.)
x

f ( x  x)  f ( x)
By first principle, we have that; f (1) ( x)  limx0 , therefore ,
x
substituting “ x  x" for " x" exclusively in the numerator, we obtain;
 f ( x  x  x)  f ( x  x) f ( x  2x)  f ( x  x)
f (1) ( x  x)  limx0  limx0 …(3.)
x x

By substituting equations (1.) and (3.) in equation (2.), we obtain;

1 f ( x  2x)  f ( x  x) f ( x  x)  f ( x)
f ( 2) ( x)  limx0 ((limx0 )  (limx 0 )) …(4.)
x x x

Observation
We can prove that lim x0 x  lim x0 x n  0 whenever 1  n n  n and x  U  R (U an
open subset of R).

As a matter of practical fact, we demonstrate below;

Proof of Observation

Considering the limit; lim x0 g ( x) where " g ( x)  x" then, we have that:

lim x 0 x  0    > 0,   > 0 such that whenever x  0 <  ,  x  0 <  x  U.

That is, x <  . It suffices to set    and we obtain the interval of validity of this
approximation, for the behaviour of the function ' g ' of the variable x in some chosen
"  neighbourhood " of zero.
We now consider the limit of " h( x)  x n " as " x  0" with 1  n n  n.

lim x0 x n  0    > 0,   > 0 such that whenever x n  0 <  ,  x  0 <  x  U.

1
x  0 <   x  x <  . Thus, x <   x < 
n n
n n n
, x  U.
1
In which case it only suffices to set    n to obtain the required interval in which
“ h( x)  x n ” exhibits the same behaviour as the function " g ( x)  x" whenever x  0 .

Thus, by choosing ‘  ’ and keeping it fixed, we notice that the interval in which
" g ( x)  x" approximates with negligible error to zero in a very small neighbourhood of
zero, is the largest, and, shrinks to even smaller lengths as the value of the exponent of
" x" grows to higher naturals.

Hence, if I1 is the interval of validity of; lim x 0 x  0 , then we observe that, if by

recursion I k is the interval of validity of the limit lim x0 x k  0 , I1  I k  I k 1 with
2  k  n and thus; I1  I 2  I 3  ...  I n that is, the sequence of intervals of validity of
the approximations of the limits of natural powers of x as x tends to zero I p p 1 is a
n

decreasing sequence and hence;

lim x0 x  0  lim x0 x k  0 k  1 and k  n
Q.E.D

Since all the limits in equation (4.) are taken over the same variable parameter,
notably "x" , we can only consider the outermost limit for them all and eliminate the
others(We have the right to do this by virtue of the above made observation) and we shall
eventually obtain;

1 f ( x  2x)  f ( x  x) f ( x  x)  f ( x)

f ( 2) ( x)  lim x0 (( )( ))
x x x

A simplification of this equation gives us ;

f ( x  2x)  2 f ( x  x)  f ( x)
f ( 2) ( x)  limx0 …..(5.)
(x) 2

Thus, the importance of the above made observation. Because, equation (5.) is a direct
consequence of its application.
We investigate the nature of the third derivative of ‘ f ’.

f ( 2) ( x  x)  f ( 2) ( x)
By definition, f (3) ( x)  lim x0 . Assuming, the limit exists.
x

As done above for the case of the second derivative, we substitute “ x  x" for " x" in
equation (5.), and making use of the same arguments made use of in the case of the
second derivative of ‘ f ’, we have that;

1 f ( x  3x)  2 f ( x  2x)  f ( x  x) ( f ( x  2x)  f ( x  x)  f ( x))

f ( 3) ( x)  limx0 ( 
x (x) 2 (x) 2

Simplifying the above equation, we obtain;

f ( x  3x)  3 f ( x  2x)  3 f ( x  x)  f ( x)

f (3) ( x)  lim x0 ….(6.)
(x) 3

Observing equations (1.), (5.), and (6.), we need do another check for the case of
" f ( 4 ) ( x)" the expression of the fourth derivative of ‘ f ’.
By similar procedure as for the case of the investigation of " f (3) ( x)" , we have that;

f (3) ( x  x)  f ( 3) ( x)
f ( 4) ( x)  limx 0 .
x
We first simplify the numerator’s numerator below;
f (3) ( x  x)  f (3) ( x)  f ( x  4x)  4 f ( x  3x)  6 f ( x  2x)  4 f ( x  x)  f ( x) .

This expression’s denominator is " (x) 3 " and so, substituting this in the equation we
have written above, we obtain " f ( 4 ) ( x)" to be;

f ( x  4x)  4 f ( x  3x)  6 f ( x  2x)  4 f ( x  x)  f ( x)

f ( 4) ( x)  limx0 ….(7.)
(x) 4

By observing equations (1.), (5.), (6.), and (7.), we observe a very regular behaviour for
the expressions of these higher order derivatives and, with the coefficients obeying the
rule imposed by the binomial theorem.
Although an alternating series, we observe that this series has a regular behaviour.

Thus ; f ( 0) ( x)  f ( x). …(a.)

f ( x  x)  f ( x)
f (1) ( x)  limx0 …..(b.)
x
f ( x  2x)  2 f ( x  x)  f ( x)
f ( 2) ( x)  limx0 ….(c.)
(x) 2
f ( x  3x)  3 f ( x  2x)  3 f ( x  x)  f ( x)
f (3) ( x)  lim x0 …(d.)
(x) 3
f ( x  4x)  4 f ( x  3x)  6 f ( x  2x)  4 f ( x  x)  f ( x)
f ( 4) ( x)  limx0 …(e.)
(x) 4

1 1  1
(b.)  f (1) ( x)  limx0 (1. . f ( x  (1  0)x)  (1). . f ( x  (1  1)x)).
x  0  1
(c.)

1  2  2  2
f ( 2) ( x)  lim x 0 (1. . f ( x  (2  0)x)  (1). . f ( x  (2  1)x)  1. . f ( x  (2  2)x)).
(x) 2
0 1   2

The same observation is valid for the equations (e,) and (f,) where;

x x!
   x  y with x, y  n.
 y  ( x  y )!.y!

x y
x!  i and, y!  i .
i 1 i 1

From which we conclude that;

     
  (1) i . . f ( x  (  i )x 
 
( )  i 0 i     0 and   N,
f ( x)  limx0 
(x)

The last formula though derived by recursive investigation of particular cases, and, a
conjecture set forth with the help of some observations, we can affirm the conjecture to
be correct. Consequently, we have that;

 k k  
  (1) i . . f ( x  (k  i )x 
 
i 
f ( k ) ( x)  limx0   k  0 and k  N,
i 0

(x) k

Q.E.D