Invariance of results when scaling explanatory variables in logistic regression, is there a proof? There is a standard result for linear regression that the regression coefficients are given by
$$\mathbf{\beta}=(\mathbf{X^T X})^{-1}\mathbf{X^T y}$$
or
$(\mathbf{X^T X})\mathbf{\beta}=\mathbf{X^T y} \tag{2}\label{eq2}$
Scaling the explanatory variables does not affect the predictions. I have tried to show this algebraically as follows.
The response is related to the explanatory variables via the matrix equation
$\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{X \beta} \tag{3}\label{eq3}$
$\mathbf{X}$ is an $n \times (p+1)$ matrix of n observations on p explanatory variables. The first column of $\mathbf{X}$ is a column of ones.
Scaling the explanatory variables with a $(p+1) \times (p+1) $ diagonal matrix $\mathbf{D}$, whose entries are the scaling factors
$
\mathbf{X^s} = \mathbf{XD} \tag{4}\label{eq4}$
$\mathbf{X^s}$ and $\mathbf{\beta^s}$ satisfy $\eqref{eq2}$:
$$(\mathbf{D^TX^T XD})\mathbf{\beta^s} =\mathbf{D^TX^T y}$$
so
$$\mathbf{X^T XD}\mathbf{\beta^s} =\mathbf{X^T y}$$
$$\Rightarrow \mathbf{D \beta^s} = (\mathbf{X^T X)^{-1}}\mathbf{X^T y}=\mathbf{\beta}$$
$\Rightarrow \mathbf{\beta^s}=\mathbf{D}^{-1}\mathbf{\beta} \tag{5}\label{eq5}$
This means if an explanatory variable is scaled by $d_i$ then the regression coefficient $\beta_i$is scaled by $1/d_i$ and the  effect of the scaling cancels out, i.e.
considering predictions based on scaled values, and using $\eqref{eq4},\eqref{eq5},\eqref{eq3}$
$$\mathbf{y^s}=\mathbf{X^s \beta^s} = \mathbf{X D D^{-1}\beta}=\mathbf{X \beta}=\mathbf{y}$$
as expected.
Now to the question.
For logistic regression without any regularization, it is suggested, by doing regressions with and without scaling the same effect is seen
fit <- glm(vs ~ mpg, data=mtcars, family=binomial)

print(fit)

Coefficients:
(Intercept)          mpg  
    -8.8331       0.4304  

mtcars$mpg <- mtcars$mpg * 10

fit <- glm(vs ~ mpg, data=mtcars, family=binomial)

print(fit)

Coefficients:
(Intercept)          mpg  
   -8.83307      0.04304  

When the variable mpg is scaled up by 10, the corresponding coefficient is scaled down by 10.

*

*How could this scaling property be proved (or disproved ) algebraically for logistic regression?

I found a similar question relating to the effect on AUC when regularization is used.


*Is there any point to scaling explanatory variables in logistic regression, in the absence of regularization?

 A: Christoph has a great answer (+1). Just writing this because I can't comment there.
The crucial point here is that the likelihood only depends on the coefficients $\beta$ through the linear term $X \beta$. This makes the likelihood unable to distinguish between "$X \beta$" and $(XD) (D^{-1}\beta)$", causing the invariance you've noticed. 
To be specific about this, we need to introduce some notation (which we can do since we're writing an answer!). Let $y_i | x_i \stackrel{ind.}{\sim} \mathrm{bernoulli}\left[ \mathrm{logit}^{-1} (x_i^T \beta) \right]$ be independent draws according to the logistic regression model, where $x_i \in \mathbb{R}^{p+1}$ is the measured covariates. Write the likelihood of the $i^{th}$ observation as $l(y_i, x_i^T \beta)$.
To introduce the change of coordinates, write $\bar{x}_i = D x_i$, where $D$ is diagonal matrix with all diagonal entries nonzero. By definition of maximum likelihood estimation, we know that maximum likelihood estimators $\hat{\beta}$ of the data $\{y_i | x_i\}$ satisfy that $$\sum_{i=1}^n l(y_i, x_i^T \beta) \leq \sum_{i=1}^n l(y_i, x_i^T \hat\beta) \tag{1}$$ for all coefficients $\beta \in \mathbb{R}^p$, and that maximum likelihood estimators for the data $\{y_i | \bar{x}_i\}$ satisfy that $$\sum_{i=1}^n l(y_i, \bar{x}_i^T \alpha) \leq \sum_{i=1}^n l(y_i, \bar{x}_i^T \hat\alpha) \tag{2}$$ for all coefficients $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^p$. 
In your argument, you used a closed form of the maximum likelihood estimator to derive the result. It turns out, though, (as Cristoph suggested above), all you need to do is work with the likelihood. Let $\hat{\beta}$ be a maximum likelihood estimator of the data $\{y_i | x_i\}$. Now, writing $\beta = D \alpha$, we can use equation (1) to show that $$\sum_{i=1}^n l(y_i, \bar{x}_i^T \alpha) = \sum_{i=1}^n l\left(y_i, (x_i^T D) (D^{-1} \beta)\right) \leq \sum_{i=1}^n l(y_i, x_i^T \hat\beta) = \sum_{i=1}^n l(y_i, \bar{x}_i^T D^{-1} \hat{\beta}).$$ That is, $D^{-1} \hat{\beta}$ satisfies equation (2) and is therefore a maximum likelihood estimator with respect to the data $\{y_i | \bar{x}_i\}$. This is the invariance property you noticed.
(For what it's worth, there's a lot of room for generalizing this argument beyond logistic regression: did we need independent observations? did we need the matrix $D$ to be diagonal? did we need a binary response? did we need the use logit? What notation would you change for this argument to work in different scenarios?)
A: Here is a heuristic idea:
The likelihood for a logistic regression model is
$$ \ell(\beta|y) \propto \prod_i\left(\frac{\exp(x_i'\beta)}{1+\exp(x_i'\beta)}\right)^{y_i}\left(\frac{1}{1+\exp(x_i'\beta)}\right)^{1-y_i}
$$
and the MLE is the arg max of that likelihood. When you scale a regressor, you also need to accordingly scale the coefficients to achieve the original maximal likelihood.
