Why is $a^{-x}$ defined to be equal to $frac{1}{a^x}$? [duplicate]
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
If $x^a$ is $x$ multiplied $a$ times, then how does $x^{-1}$ make sense?
2 answers
I have searched the reason behind this definition in two textbooks and haven't found any. They just state that this is the definition but don't ever give any motivation for why this is truth.
Edit:
I figured out why that relation must be true about 10 seconds after posting the question. Instead of looking for explanations I should have thought for a while. Still, thank you everyone.
exponentiation
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen, mrtaurho, Ethan Bolker, TheSimpliFire, Lord Shark the Unknown Dec 27 '18 at 5:29
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
If $x^a$ is $x$ multiplied $a$ times, then how does $x^{-1}$ make sense?
2 answers
I have searched the reason behind this definition in two textbooks and haven't found any. They just state that this is the definition but don't ever give any motivation for why this is truth.
Edit:
I figured out why that relation must be true about 10 seconds after posting the question. Instead of looking for explanations I should have thought for a while. Still, thank you everyone.
exponentiation
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen, mrtaurho, Ethan Bolker, TheSimpliFire, Lord Shark the Unknown Dec 27 '18 at 5:29
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
$begingroup$
It is so that you can extend the rule $a^ntimes a^m=a^{n+m}$ to negative values of $m$ and $n$. Assuming you know $a^0=1$ for $aneq 0$
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
Dec 26 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
An alternative duplicate target. Make your pick, there's no shortage.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 26 '18 at 21:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
If $x^a$ is $x$ multiplied $a$ times, then how does $x^{-1}$ make sense?
2 answers
I have searched the reason behind this definition in two textbooks and haven't found any. They just state that this is the definition but don't ever give any motivation for why this is truth.
Edit:
I figured out why that relation must be true about 10 seconds after posting the question. Instead of looking for explanations I should have thought for a while. Still, thank you everyone.
exponentiation
$endgroup$
This question already has an answer here:
If $x^a$ is $x$ multiplied $a$ times, then how does $x^{-1}$ make sense?
2 answers
I have searched the reason behind this definition in two textbooks and haven't found any. They just state that this is the definition but don't ever give any motivation for why this is truth.
Edit:
I figured out why that relation must be true about 10 seconds after posting the question. Instead of looking for explanations I should have thought for a while. Still, thank you everyone.
This question already has an answer here:
If $x^a$ is $x$ multiplied $a$ times, then how does $x^{-1}$ make sense?
2 answers
exponentiation
exponentiation
edited Dec 26 '18 at 21:12
Victor S.
asked Dec 26 '18 at 20:50
Victor S.Victor S.
35019
35019
marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen, mrtaurho, Ethan Bolker, TheSimpliFire, Lord Shark the Unknown Dec 27 '18 at 5:29
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Jyrki Lahtonen, mrtaurho, Ethan Bolker, TheSimpliFire, Lord Shark the Unknown Dec 27 '18 at 5:29
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
$begingroup$
It is so that you can extend the rule $a^ntimes a^m=a^{n+m}$ to negative values of $m$ and $n$. Assuming you know $a^0=1$ for $aneq 0$
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
Dec 26 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
An alternative duplicate target. Make your pick, there's no shortage.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 26 '18 at 21:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is so that you can extend the rule $a^ntimes a^m=a^{n+m}$ to negative values of $m$ and $n$. Assuming you know $a^0=1$ for $aneq 0$
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
Dec 26 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
An alternative duplicate target. Make your pick, there's no shortage.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 26 '18 at 21:03
$begingroup$
It is so that you can extend the rule $a^ntimes a^m=a^{n+m}$ to negative values of $m$ and $n$. Assuming you know $a^0=1$ for $aneq 0$
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
Dec 26 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
It is so that you can extend the rule $a^ntimes a^m=a^{n+m}$ to negative values of $m$ and $n$. Assuming you know $a^0=1$ for $aneq 0$
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
Dec 26 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
An alternative duplicate target. Make your pick, there's no shortage.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 26 '18 at 21:03
$begingroup$
An alternative duplicate target. Make your pick, there's no shortage.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 26 '18 at 21:03
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A fundamental property of power is $a^xcdot a^y=a^{x+y}$ for nonzero $a$.
Then, $a^xcdot a^{-x}$ should be $a^{x-x}=a^0=1$. Therefore $a^{-x}$ should be $1/a^x$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Dang! Beat me to it by seconds. $+1$ For OP: if these two things did not correspond to the same number, exponent laws would not really make sense (at least not fully).
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Dec 26 '18 at 20:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$a^0=1$
$a^0=a^{x-x}=a^x a^{-x}=1$.
Thus : $a^{-x}$ is the multiplicative inverse of $a^x$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As you said, this is a matter of definition, but this choice is not random. Here is a short explanation why mathematicians chose this definition.
If you define exponentiation for $ain mathbb Z^+$ and $bin mathbb Z^+$ using repeated multiplication, or define it recursively as
$$a^1=a$$
$$a^{b+1}=acdot a^b$$
Then the following fundamental property follows:
$$a^xcdot a^{y}=a^{x+y}$$
In order to define $a^b$ for $binmathbb Zsetminus{0}$, we may simply assume that this property holds for all $x,yinmathbb R$. If we take this to be true, then we may deduce the value of $a^0$, since
$$a^0cdot a^{b}=a^{b}implies a^0=1$$
From this it would follow that
$$a^xcdot a^{-x}=a^0=1implies a^{-x}=frac{1}{a^x}$$
which is the proposition that you are wondering about.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer:
For positive integers $m$ and $n$ the identity
$$
a^{m+n} = a^m a^n
$$
is obvious when you define exponentiation as repeated multiplication.
That identity is so important that we want to preserve it when we allow other kinds of values for the exponents.
The first consequence is
$$
a^0 = 1 .
$$
Then it's easy to show that $a^{-n}$ must be $1/a^n$.
The rules for rational exponents follow too - e.g. the $1/2$ power is the square root.
Extending the definition to all real numbers is a little more subtle.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We originally establish that for $q>0$ we have:
$$a^q cdot a = a^{q+1}$$
We rearrange this to:
$$a^q=a^{q+1} div a$$
Let $q=0$. We then see that:
$$a^0=a^1div a = 1$$
Then $q=-1$ leads to $$a^{-1}=1div a$$
A continuation of this process, combined with extensive use of $$frac{(frac ab)}{c}=frac{a}{bc}$$ implies that:
$$a^{-n}=frac{1}{a^n}$$ is a suitable notation to extend the first statement I gave to all $qinBbb Z$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A fundamental property of power is $a^xcdot a^y=a^{x+y}$ for nonzero $a$.
Then, $a^xcdot a^{-x}$ should be $a^{x-x}=a^0=1$. Therefore $a^{-x}$ should be $1/a^x$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Dang! Beat me to it by seconds. $+1$ For OP: if these two things did not correspond to the same number, exponent laws would not really make sense (at least not fully).
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Dec 26 '18 at 20:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A fundamental property of power is $a^xcdot a^y=a^{x+y}$ for nonzero $a$.
Then, $a^xcdot a^{-x}$ should be $a^{x-x}=a^0=1$. Therefore $a^{-x}$ should be $1/a^x$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Dang! Beat me to it by seconds. $+1$ For OP: if these two things did not correspond to the same number, exponent laws would not really make sense (at least not fully).
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Dec 26 '18 at 20:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A fundamental property of power is $a^xcdot a^y=a^{x+y}$ for nonzero $a$.
Then, $a^xcdot a^{-x}$ should be $a^{x-x}=a^0=1$. Therefore $a^{-x}$ should be $1/a^x$.
$endgroup$
A fundamental property of power is $a^xcdot a^y=a^{x+y}$ for nonzero $a$.
Then, $a^xcdot a^{-x}$ should be $a^{x-x}=a^0=1$. Therefore $a^{-x}$ should be $1/a^x$.
edited Dec 26 '18 at 20:55
TheSimpliFire
13.2k62464
13.2k62464
answered Dec 26 '18 at 20:52
ajotatxeajotatxe
54.1k24190
54.1k24190
$begingroup$
Dang! Beat me to it by seconds. $+1$ For OP: if these two things did not correspond to the same number, exponent laws would not really make sense (at least not fully).
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Dec 26 '18 at 20:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Dang! Beat me to it by seconds. $+1$ For OP: if these two things did not correspond to the same number, exponent laws would not really make sense (at least not fully).
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Dec 26 '18 at 20:53
$begingroup$
Dang! Beat me to it by seconds. $+1$ For OP: if these two things did not correspond to the same number, exponent laws would not really make sense (at least not fully).
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Dec 26 '18 at 20:53
$begingroup$
Dang! Beat me to it by seconds. $+1$ For OP: if these two things did not correspond to the same number, exponent laws would not really make sense (at least not fully).
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Dec 26 '18 at 20:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$a^0=1$
$a^0=a^{x-x}=a^x a^{-x}=1$.
Thus : $a^{-x}$ is the multiplicative inverse of $a^x$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$a^0=1$
$a^0=a^{x-x}=a^x a^{-x}=1$.
Thus : $a^{-x}$ is the multiplicative inverse of $a^x$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$a^0=1$
$a^0=a^{x-x}=a^x a^{-x}=1$.
Thus : $a^{-x}$ is the multiplicative inverse of $a^x$.
$endgroup$
$a^0=1$
$a^0=a^{x-x}=a^x a^{-x}=1$.
Thus : $a^{-x}$ is the multiplicative inverse of $a^x$.
answered Dec 26 '18 at 20:53
Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA
67.9k449117
67.9k449117
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As you said, this is a matter of definition, but this choice is not random. Here is a short explanation why mathematicians chose this definition.
If you define exponentiation for $ain mathbb Z^+$ and $bin mathbb Z^+$ using repeated multiplication, or define it recursively as
$$a^1=a$$
$$a^{b+1}=acdot a^b$$
Then the following fundamental property follows:
$$a^xcdot a^{y}=a^{x+y}$$
In order to define $a^b$ for $binmathbb Zsetminus{0}$, we may simply assume that this property holds for all $x,yinmathbb R$. If we take this to be true, then we may deduce the value of $a^0$, since
$$a^0cdot a^{b}=a^{b}implies a^0=1$$
From this it would follow that
$$a^xcdot a^{-x}=a^0=1implies a^{-x}=frac{1}{a^x}$$
which is the proposition that you are wondering about.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As you said, this is a matter of definition, but this choice is not random. Here is a short explanation why mathematicians chose this definition.
If you define exponentiation for $ain mathbb Z^+$ and $bin mathbb Z^+$ using repeated multiplication, or define it recursively as
$$a^1=a$$
$$a^{b+1}=acdot a^b$$
Then the following fundamental property follows:
$$a^xcdot a^{y}=a^{x+y}$$
In order to define $a^b$ for $binmathbb Zsetminus{0}$, we may simply assume that this property holds for all $x,yinmathbb R$. If we take this to be true, then we may deduce the value of $a^0$, since
$$a^0cdot a^{b}=a^{b}implies a^0=1$$
From this it would follow that
$$a^xcdot a^{-x}=a^0=1implies a^{-x}=frac{1}{a^x}$$
which is the proposition that you are wondering about.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As you said, this is a matter of definition, but this choice is not random. Here is a short explanation why mathematicians chose this definition.
If you define exponentiation for $ain mathbb Z^+$ and $bin mathbb Z^+$ using repeated multiplication, or define it recursively as
$$a^1=a$$
$$a^{b+1}=acdot a^b$$
Then the following fundamental property follows:
$$a^xcdot a^{y}=a^{x+y}$$
In order to define $a^b$ for $binmathbb Zsetminus{0}$, we may simply assume that this property holds for all $x,yinmathbb R$. If we take this to be true, then we may deduce the value of $a^0$, since
$$a^0cdot a^{b}=a^{b}implies a^0=1$$
From this it would follow that
$$a^xcdot a^{-x}=a^0=1implies a^{-x}=frac{1}{a^x}$$
which is the proposition that you are wondering about.
$endgroup$
As you said, this is a matter of definition, but this choice is not random. Here is a short explanation why mathematicians chose this definition.
If you define exponentiation for $ain mathbb Z^+$ and $bin mathbb Z^+$ using repeated multiplication, or define it recursively as
$$a^1=a$$
$$a^{b+1}=acdot a^b$$
Then the following fundamental property follows:
$$a^xcdot a^{y}=a^{x+y}$$
In order to define $a^b$ for $binmathbb Zsetminus{0}$, we may simply assume that this property holds for all $x,yinmathbb R$. If we take this to be true, then we may deduce the value of $a^0$, since
$$a^0cdot a^{b}=a^{b}implies a^0=1$$
From this it would follow that
$$a^xcdot a^{-x}=a^0=1implies a^{-x}=frac{1}{a^x}$$
which is the proposition that you are wondering about.
edited Dec 26 '18 at 20:57
TheSimpliFire
13.2k62464
13.2k62464
answered Dec 26 '18 at 20:55
FrpzzdFrpzzd
23k841112
23k841112
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer:
For positive integers $m$ and $n$ the identity
$$
a^{m+n} = a^m a^n
$$
is obvious when you define exponentiation as repeated multiplication.
That identity is so important that we want to preserve it when we allow other kinds of values for the exponents.
The first consequence is
$$
a^0 = 1 .
$$
Then it's easy to show that $a^{-n}$ must be $1/a^n$.
The rules for rational exponents follow too - e.g. the $1/2$ power is the square root.
Extending the definition to all real numbers is a little more subtle.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer:
For positive integers $m$ and $n$ the identity
$$
a^{m+n} = a^m a^n
$$
is obvious when you define exponentiation as repeated multiplication.
That identity is so important that we want to preserve it when we allow other kinds of values for the exponents.
The first consequence is
$$
a^0 = 1 .
$$
Then it's easy to show that $a^{-n}$ must be $1/a^n$.
The rules for rational exponents follow too - e.g. the $1/2$ power is the square root.
Extending the definition to all real numbers is a little more subtle.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer:
For positive integers $m$ and $n$ the identity
$$
a^{m+n} = a^m a^n
$$
is obvious when you define exponentiation as repeated multiplication.
That identity is so important that we want to preserve it when we allow other kinds of values for the exponents.
The first consequence is
$$
a^0 = 1 .
$$
Then it's easy to show that $a^{-n}$ must be $1/a^n$.
The rules for rational exponents follow too - e.g. the $1/2$ power is the square root.
Extending the definition to all real numbers is a little more subtle.
$endgroup$
Short answer:
For positive integers $m$ and $n$ the identity
$$
a^{m+n} = a^m a^n
$$
is obvious when you define exponentiation as repeated multiplication.
That identity is so important that we want to preserve it when we allow other kinds of values for the exponents.
The first consequence is
$$
a^0 = 1 .
$$
Then it's easy to show that $a^{-n}$ must be $1/a^n$.
The rules for rational exponents follow too - e.g. the $1/2$ power is the square root.
Extending the definition to all real numbers is a little more subtle.
answered Dec 26 '18 at 20:56
Ethan BolkerEthan Bolker
46.1k553120
46.1k553120
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We originally establish that for $q>0$ we have:
$$a^q cdot a = a^{q+1}$$
We rearrange this to:
$$a^q=a^{q+1} div a$$
Let $q=0$. We then see that:
$$a^0=a^1div a = 1$$
Then $q=-1$ leads to $$a^{-1}=1div a$$
A continuation of this process, combined with extensive use of $$frac{(frac ab)}{c}=frac{a}{bc}$$ implies that:
$$a^{-n}=frac{1}{a^n}$$ is a suitable notation to extend the first statement I gave to all $qinBbb Z$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We originally establish that for $q>0$ we have:
$$a^q cdot a = a^{q+1}$$
We rearrange this to:
$$a^q=a^{q+1} div a$$
Let $q=0$. We then see that:
$$a^0=a^1div a = 1$$
Then $q=-1$ leads to $$a^{-1}=1div a$$
A continuation of this process, combined with extensive use of $$frac{(frac ab)}{c}=frac{a}{bc}$$ implies that:
$$a^{-n}=frac{1}{a^n}$$ is a suitable notation to extend the first statement I gave to all $qinBbb Z$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We originally establish that for $q>0$ we have:
$$a^q cdot a = a^{q+1}$$
We rearrange this to:
$$a^q=a^{q+1} div a$$
Let $q=0$. We then see that:
$$a^0=a^1div a = 1$$
Then $q=-1$ leads to $$a^{-1}=1div a$$
A continuation of this process, combined with extensive use of $$frac{(frac ab)}{c}=frac{a}{bc}$$ implies that:
$$a^{-n}=frac{1}{a^n}$$ is a suitable notation to extend the first statement I gave to all $qinBbb Z$
$endgroup$
We originally establish that for $q>0$ we have:
$$a^q cdot a = a^{q+1}$$
We rearrange this to:
$$a^q=a^{q+1} div a$$
Let $q=0$. We then see that:
$$a^0=a^1div a = 1$$
Then $q=-1$ leads to $$a^{-1}=1div a$$
A continuation of this process, combined with extensive use of $$frac{(frac ab)}{c}=frac{a}{bc}$$ implies that:
$$a^{-n}=frac{1}{a^n}$$ is a suitable notation to extend the first statement I gave to all $qinBbb Z$
answered Dec 26 '18 at 21:06
Rhys HughesRhys Hughes
7,0501630
7,0501630
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is so that you can extend the rule $a^ntimes a^m=a^{n+m}$ to negative values of $m$ and $n$. Assuming you know $a^0=1$ for $aneq 0$
$endgroup$
– Mark Bennet
Dec 26 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
An alternative duplicate target. Make your pick, there's no shortage.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Dec 26 '18 at 21:03