Proving the Power Rule for Rational Exponents Using Induction

  • Thread starter georg gill
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, the power rule for rational exponents can be proven using induction. This rule states that for any real number a and positive integer n, the expression a^(m/n) can be rewritten as the nth root of a^m. By using the principle of mathematical induction, we can show that this rule holds true for all positive integer values of n, and therefore, for all rational exponents. This proof involves establishing a base case and then using the inductive hypothesis to show that the rule holds for n+1. This method of proof allows us to generalize the power rule for rational exponents and apply it to a wide range of mathematical problems.
  • #1
georg gill
153
6
This is the proof

http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ProofOfPropertiesOfTheExponential.html

I wonder what they do when they describe monotnicity for integers. Why is

[tex]x^p<y<p[/tex] when x<y and p is a positive integer? What if p was really large?and further down in the part homogeneity for rational exponents is there a typo there? Should not

[tex] (v_1 v_2)^n > (xy)^m[/tex]

and not

[tex] (v_1 v_2)^n < (xy)^m[/tex]

or?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi georg gill! :smile:

georg gill said:
This is the proof

http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ProofOfPropertiesOfTheExponential.html

I wonder what they do when they describe monotnicity for integers. Why is

[tex]x^p<y<p[/tex] when x<y and p is a positive integer? What if p was really large?

It's a typo. It should be:
[tex]x^p<y^p[/tex]
georg gill said:
and further down in the part homogeneity for rational exponents is there a typo there? Should not

[tex] (v_1 v_2)^n > (xy)^m[/tex]

and not

[tex] (v_1 v_2)^n < (xy)^m[/tex]

or?

Yep. You found another typo.

Good that you understand the material!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
As to the title of this thread, however, they are proving a^(x+y)= a^xa^y and a^(xy)= (a^x)^y= (a^y)^x, NOT "a^(xy)= a^x+ a^y" which is simply not true.
 
  • #4
HallsofIvy said:
As to the title of this thread, however, they are proving a^(x+y)= a^xa^y and a^(xy)= (a^x)^y= (a^y)^x, NOT "a^(xy)= a^x+ a^y" which is simply not true.

sorry about the heading. but the part [tex] a^(xy)= (a^x)^y= (a^y)^x[\tex] (c)

I did not know this was a proof for (c). that was a proof I needed much. Very cool! I just have to work through it later and see if I get it:)
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Which step do you not get exactly?

(TBH, I find it a bit troublesome to work through those web links. Perhaps you can copy the step that's giving you difficulty?)
 
  • #6
I guess this is my explenation for what I did get from the proof

http://bildr.no/view/1035536

But actually i wanted to prove that

[tex]\sqrt[n]{c^m}\sqrt[n]{d^m}=c^{m/n}d^{m/n}[/tex] (I)

dealing with integers when working with powers and roots are much simpler because it is easier to think about a number multiplied by itself n times and the nth roth of a number because it has to be a number one gets by doing that. If one could prove (I) then one could go from whole integers for n and m on the left side to a fraction on the right side and by that one would always see that one could first find a power and then a root even (or first root then power, to switch order of theese operations is provable) though it is written as the right side of (I)

I also did manage from another proof to make this explanation (I) only a matter of showing that

[tex]a^{\frac{1}{n}}a^{\frac{1}{n}}=a^{\frac{2}{n}}[/tex] (vv)

because

http://www.viewdocsonline.com/document/biwlgx

If we use (I)

[tex]\sqrt[n]{ab}=\sqrt[n]{a}\sqrt[n]{b}[/tex]

we could get (II):

[tex]\sqrt[n]{a^m}=\sqrt[n]{aa...a}=y[/tex]

from (I)

[tex]\sqrt[n]{a^m}=\sqrt[n]{a}\sqrt[n]{a}...\sqrt[n]{a}=y[/tex]

we have m [tex]a^{\frac{1}{n}}[/tex]
and

[tex]\sqrt[n]{a}=y^{\frac{1}{m}}[/tex]

and we get (III):

[tex](\sqrt[n]{a})^m=y[/tex]

and from (II) and (III):

[tex](\sqrt[n]{a})^m=y=\sqrt[n]{a^m}[/tex]

but I can't show that (IV):

[tex](\sqrt[n]{a})^m=y=\sqrt[n]{a^m}=a^{\frac{m}{n}}[/tex]

Since I have showed that

[tex](\sqrt[n]{a})^m=\sqrt[n]{a^m}[/tex]

I only need to show that

[tex](\sqrt[n]{a})^m[/tex]

is equal too

[tex]a^{\frac{m}{n}}[/tex]

which is that

[tex](a_1)^{\frac{1}{n}}(a_2)^{\frac{1}{n}}... (a_m)^{\frac{1}{n}}[/tex]

(subscript is only for showing that it is m as)

is equal

[tex]a^{\frac{m}{n}}[/tex]

in other words I need to show

[tex](a)^{\frac{1}{n}}(a)^{\frac{1}{n}}=(a)^{\frac{2}{n}}[/tex]

to show (IV) for any whole positive integer of n and m and any real number of a

then again how to prove (vv)
 
Last edited:
  • #7
georg gill said:
I guess this is my explenation for what I did get from the proof

http://bildr.no/view/1035536

But actually i wanted to prove that

[tex]\sqrt[n]{c^m}\sqrt[n]{d^m}=c^{m/n}d^{m/n}[/tex] (I)

dealing with integers when working with powers and roots are much simpler because it is easier to think about a number multiplied by itself n times and the nth roth of a number because it has to be a number one gets by doing that. If one could prove (I) then one could go from whole integers for n and m on the left side to a fraction on the right side and by that one would always see that one could first find a power and then a root even (or first root then power, to switch order of theese operations is provable) though it is written as the right side of (I)

The very definition is

[tex]c^{\frac{n}{m}}=\sqrt[m]{c^n}[/tex]

So what you want is true by definition.
 
  • #8
Isn't that:
[tex](c^n)^{\frac{1}{m}}=\sqrt[m]{c^n}[/tex]
?
 
  • #9
I like Serena said:
Isn't that:
[tex](c^n)^{\frac{1}{m}}=\sqrt[m]{c^n}[/tex]
?
If you say take the 22th power of 1.23. That is the same as multiplying 1.23 by itself 22 times. And if you then take the 6th rooth you take the rooth 6 times after each other and that always works for any positive real number. This is easy to understand but that this is the same as

[tex]1.23^{\frac{22}{6}}=1.23^{\frac{11}{3}}[/tex]

is not as easy I think
 
  • #10
georg gill said:
And if you then take the 6th rooth you take the rooth 6 times after each other and that always works for any positive real number.

That is not the way it works.
To take the 6th root, you're looking for a number that if multiplied by itself 6 times will yield the original number.

Once you put up the power as a fraction (if that is allowed), the rules for fractions apply, and you can simplify the fraction.
 
  • #11
I like Serena said:
That is not the way it works.
To take the 6th root, you're looking for a number that if multiplied by itself 6 times will yield the original number.

Once you put up the power as a fraction (if that is allowed), the rules for fractions apply, and you can simplify the fraction.

Sorry I meant To take the 6th root, you're looking for a number that if multiplied by itself 6 times will yield the original number.

I would really like to avoid calculation of powers and roots without whole integers. Is it possible to prove

[tex](a)^{\frac{1}{n}}(a)^{\frac{1}{n}}=(a)^{\frac{2}{n}}[/tex]

for any positvie integer by induction?
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Proving the Power Rule for Rational Exponents Using Induction

What is the proof of a^xy=a^x+a^y?

The proof of a^xy=a^x+a^y is based on the properties of exponents. Firstly, we can break down a^xy as (a^x)^y, which is equivalent to a^x multiplied by itself y times. This can also be written as a^x * a^x * ... * a^x (y times). Similarly, a^x+a^y can be written as a^y * a^y * ... * a^y (x times). By multiplying these two expressions together, we get a total of xy a's multiplied together, which is equal to a^xy.

Can the proof be applied to any values of a, x, and y?

Yes, the proof can be applied to any real numbers or variables for a, x, and y. However, it is important to note that the properties of exponents used in the proof only apply to non-zero values of a.

Is the proof reversible?

Yes, the proof is reversible. This means that if we start with a^xy and use the same logic to break it down into a^x+a^y, we will end up with the same result. This is because multiplication is commutative, meaning the order in which we multiply numbers does not affect the result.

Are there any special cases where this proof does not hold true?

Yes, there is one special case where this proof does not hold true. This is when a=1, as any number raised to the power of 0 is equal to 1. Therefore, a^xy will always equal 1, but a^x+a^y will only equal 2 if both x and y are equal to 0.

How is this proof useful in mathematics?

This proof is useful in mathematics as it allows us to simplify and manipulate expressions involving exponents. It also helps us understand the relationship between the base, exponent, and the resulting value. This is important in many mathematical concepts such as logarithms, exponential growth, and geometric sequences.

Back
Top