Proof of exponentiation property

In summary: The problem asked for a proof that (a^x)^y= a^{xy} for real numbers a, x, and y where a> 0. I have shown that that is true by definition for a= e and then proved that it is still true for all positive real numbers because we can define a^x for all real numbers x by using a sequence of rational numbers converging to x. The other proof I gave was to define e^x by its inverse function, ln(x) and prove the identity that way. This is a good problem for showing how definitions can influence theorems.In summary, the conversation discusses the proof of (a^x)^y = a
  • #1
mnb96
715
5
Hello,
this might be a silly question for many of you.
How would you prove that:

[tex](a^{x})^y = a^{x\cdot y}[/tex]

when a,x,y are reals and a>0. The case for x,y integers is easy to prove, but how would you extend the proof to real numbers?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
hello mnb96! :smile:

if a = e, then it's obvious from the definition (ex = ∑ xn/n!) …

just write out the two expansions, and multiply them, term-by-term :wink:

if a ≠ e, use ax = exln(a)

however, if you object to this method, then how are you defining ax with x irrational? :redface:

if you're using a limit definition (of a sequence of rational numbers converging to x), then use the same sequence to prove the formula :smile:
 
  • #3
Thanks tiny-tim!
I was just thinking that you used the Taylor expansion of ex, and as a consequence, also the concept of derivative of ex (and finally also the logarithm).

Is all that stuff required? or is it possible to avoid it?

Moreover, when you write ax = exln(a) aren't you implicitly assuming that exln(a)=(ex)ln(a) which is what we wanted to prove?
EDIT: ops sorry...we could indeed assume in that case that we already proved the statement for a=e.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
mnb96 said:
Thanks tiny-tim!
I was just thinking that you used the Taylor expansion of ex, and as a consequence, also the concept of derivative of ex.

Is all that stuff required? or is it possible to avoid it?

you don't need the derivative at all, just multiply the two expansions :smile:
 
  • #5
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
(1) (ax)y=ax y

How one would prove (1) would depend upon the definition one would take. Really one would like (1) to be true and choose a definition to make it true.

I like the definition uv:=ev log(u)
 
  • #7
When I took the Calculus, it was the difinition of e^x, that is as x goes to infinity.

Ah, but so how did you manage to write e^x = ∑ x^n/n! It popped out from nothing without using the Taylor expansion?
 
  • #8
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
I keep pointing out to people that how you prove something like this depends heavily upon how you define the terms. And there may be sevaral different ways of defining the same thing.

It is, as you said, easy to show that, for n and m positive integers, [itex]a^xa^y= a^{x+y}[/itex] and [itex](a^x)^y= a^{xy}[/itex], for a any positive number, in particular, e. One method of proceeding is to then define [itex]a^x[/itex], for x not a positive integer, so that those formulas are true. For example, if y= 0, [itex]a^xa^y= a^{x+ y}[/itex] becomes [itex]a^xa^0= a^{x+ 0}= a^x[/itex]. From that, for a any non-zero number, it follows that defining [itex]a^0= 1[/itex], we are "preserving" that identity. Similarly, any negative integer can be written as -n for n a positive integer. With x= n, y= -n, we have [itex]a^na^{-n}= a^{n-n}= a^0= 1[/itex] so, again, for a non-zero, we must have [itex]a^{-n}= 1/a^n[/itex] and so we can define a to a negative integer power, [itex]a^{-n}[/itex], to be the reciprocal of [/itex]a^n[/itex] in order to keep that useful formula true.

If n is a non-zero integer, then [itex](a^{1/n})^{n}= a^{n(1/n)}= a^1= a[/itex]. That is, in order that that "law of exponents" be true even for non-integer powers, we must have [itex]a^{1/n}[/itex] equal to a number whose nth power is a. In order to be sure such a thing exists (I am assuming real numbers here) we must require that a be positive. In that case, there may be two such real numbers. We define [itex]a^{1/n}[/itex] to be the positive such root. Of course, it follows that [itex]a^{m/n}= (a^{1/n})^m[/itex] so we use that to define a^r for any rational number.

Finally, we define a to an irrational power by requiring that [itex]a^x[/itex] (again, for a any positive number and so, in particular, e^x) be continuous. That is, if [itex]\{r_1, r_2, r_3, \cdot\cdot\cdot, \}[/itex] is a sequence of rational numbers converging to x, then we define [itex]a^x[/itex] to be the limit [itex]\displaytype\lim_{n\to\infty} a^{r_n}[/itex].

That way we can assert that both [itex]a^xa^y= a^{x+y}[/itex] and [itex](a^x)^y= a^{xy}[/itex] are true by definition.



For a completely different point of view, and a completely different proof, we can define [tex]e^x[/tex]
to be the inverse function to ln(x) while defining ln(x) itself by
[tex]ln(x)= \int_1^x \frac{1}{t}dt[/tex]

Let x be a postive real number, y any real number. Then, by that definition,
[tex]ln(x^y)= \int_1^{x^y} \frac{1}{t}dt[/tex]

If [itex]y\ne 0[/itex], let [itex]u= t^{1/y}[/itex]. Then [itex]t= u^y[/itex] so that [itex]dt= y u^{y-1}dy[/tex]. When t= 1, u= 1 and when [itex]t= x^y[/itex], u= x. So with that change of variable, the integral becomes
[tex]ln(x^y)= \int_1^x \frac{1}{u^y}(yu^{y-1}dy)= y\int_1^x \frac{1}{u} du= yln(x)[/tex].

If y= 0, then [itex]x^y= x^0= 1[/itex] so that
[itex]ln(x^y)= ln(1)= \int_1^1\frac{1}{t}dt= 0[/itex]
so we still have [itex]ln(x^y)= ln(1)= 0= 0(ln(1))= yln(x)[/itex].

Now, if we let [itex]w= (e^x)^y[/itex], with [itex]y\ne 0[/itex], we have [itex]w^{1/y}= e^x[/itex] and, since [itex]e^x[/itex] is defined as the inverse function to ln(x), we have [itex]x= ln(w^{1/y})= (1/y)ln(w)[/itex] and so [itex]xy= ln(w)[/itex]. Now return to the exponential form:
[itex]w= e^{xy}[/itex] proving that [itex]w= (e^x)^y= e^{xy}[/itex].

Of course, if y= 0, then [itex](e^x)^y= (e^x)^0= 1= e^0= e^{x(0)}= e^{xy}[/itex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FAQ: Proof of exponentiation property

What is the proof of exponentiation property?

The proof of exponentiation property is a mathematical concept that states that when two numbers are multiplied and then raised to a power, the result will be the same as if each number was raised to the power individually and then multiplied together. In other words, (ab)^n = a^n * b^n.

How is the proof of exponentiation property useful?

The proof of exponentiation property is useful in simplifying complex mathematical expressions, particularly in algebra and calculus. It also helps in solving equations involving exponents and in understanding the relationship between multiplication and exponentiation.

What are the requirements for the proof of exponentiation property to hold true?

For the proof of exponentiation property to hold true, the numbers being multiplied must be real numbers, and the exponent must be a whole number. It also holds true for negative numbers and fractional exponents, as long as the base numbers are non-zero.

How can the proof of exponentiation property be proven?

The proof of exponentiation property can be proven using mathematical induction, which involves proving that the property holds true for a specific case (usually n = 1), and then showing that if it holds true for n = k, it will also hold true for n = k+1.

Are there any real-life applications of the proof of exponentiation property?

Yes, the proof of exponentiation property is used in various fields of science and engineering, such as in physics and computer science. It is also utilized in financial calculations, such as compound interest, and in cryptography for secure data encryption.

Similar threads

Back
Top