I was just thinking, how is yx defined when x is
irrational (i.e. you can't say it's the q-th root of y to the
power of p, if x = p/q). Also, why is it that x1/q =
the q-th root of x? It's probably defined that way, but you could
define it however you wanted - what's the reasoning behind it? If
that makes sense.
Regards,
Olof
Hi Olof, there's various ways of doing
it (as always).
You can define yx to be ex log(y) which
deals with rationals, irrationals, complex numbers, or whatever
you like. If you define it that way you have to show that this
corresponds to your definitions of yx when x is
rational, but this isn't too difficult.
The other way of doing it is to define it as a limit. So, if the
sequence of rationals pn /qn tends to x as
n tends to infinity (and every irrational has such a sequence)
then we define yx to be the limit of ypn/qn
as n tends to infinity. The reason for defining x1/q
to be the q-th root of x is because we want to preserve the idea
that (xa )b =xab for all a and
b. If we want this relationship to hold for all a and b, then it
a=1/p and b=p we want (x1/p )p =x, which
just says x1/p is the p-th root of x. Does that
help?
I see Dan, thanks a lot. I suppose that the relationship
(xa )b =xab comes from logs? How
would one show that log ab = log a + log b? Am I right in
thinking this can be used to show that log an = n log
a, which would then show (xa )b
=xab ?
Thanks again,
Olof
Well, (xa )b
=xab can be proved for integer a,b without using logs,
and this could be a reason for thinking that it should also be
true if a and b are nonintegers.
Alternatively you can do it usings logs. You can prove that log
ab = log a + log b by saying that ab=elog(ab) ,
a=elog(a) , b=elog(b) , so
elog(ab) =elog(a) elog(b)
=elog(a)+log(b) , taking logs we get
log(ab)=log(a)+log(b).
There are various starting points for all of these things. If
you've defined xy to be eylog(x) then
obviously log(xy )=log(eylog(x) )=ylog(x).
However, if you've defined xy in another way you have
to show that xy =eylog(x) , and so on. We
can prove (xa )b =xab for
integer a and b just by noting that (xa )b
=xa xa ...xa (b times), and so
=xa+a+...+a =xab .
There is another way of proving that , which should show that , though I haven't given this much thought.
It uses integration of the curve of . If we integrated between the limits of 1 and , where is greater than 1. Call this . is another -value greater than 1. We integrate between 1 and We call this since the area between and is . It can be seen that We cannot simply integrate between and as our answer won't be in terms of only. If we use the substitution , where is a function of then The only way that is if and To find Using the substitutions Since thenThanks Ali and Dan. I hadn't thought of it that way before Ali
- thanks for pointing it out.
One last thing - is it as easy to show that xa
xb = xa+b , for real a & b? I'll have a
go in a moment.
/Olof
Just use the definition Dan gave.
Kerwin
Do you do more rigorous proofs of this kind of thing at university?
Olof, yes, when proving it rigorously you have to worry about convergence, that's the main problem (which is true if you define yx as the limit of ypn/qn , or if you define yx as exlog(y) , since you have to prove that exp and log are well defined functions, lots of work on power series and stuff).