Why is $a^{-x}$ defined to be equal to $frac{1}{a^x}$? [duplicate]












1












$begingroup$



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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



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
















1












$begingroup$



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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



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














1












1








1





$begingroup$



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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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


















  • $begingroup$
    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










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

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 $1/a^x$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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





















4












$begingroup$

$a^0=1$



$a^0=a^{x-x}=a^x a^{-x}=1$.



Thus : $a^{-x}$ is the multiplicative inverse of $a^x$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    4












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$





















      1












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$





















        1












        $begingroup$

        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 $qinBbb Z$






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$




















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          7












          $begingroup$

          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 $1/a^x$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            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


















          7












          $begingroup$

          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 $1/a^x$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            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
















          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          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 $1/a^x$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          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 $1/a^x$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          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




















          • $begingroup$
            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













          4












          $begingroup$

          $a^0=1$



          $a^0=a^{x-x}=a^x a^{-x}=1$.



          Thus : $a^{-x}$ is the multiplicative inverse of $a^x$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$


















            4












            $begingroup$

            $a^0=1$



            $a^0=a^{x-x}=a^x a^{-x}=1$.



            Thus : $a^{-x}$ is the multiplicative inverse of $a^x$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$
















              4












              4








              4





              $begingroup$

              $a^0=1$



              $a^0=a^{x-x}=a^x a^{-x}=1$.



              Thus : $a^{-x}$ is the multiplicative inverse of $a^x$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              $a^0=1$



              $a^0=a^{x-x}=a^x a^{-x}=1$.



              Thus : $a^{-x}$ is the multiplicative inverse of $a^x$.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Dec 26 '18 at 20:53









              Mauro ALLEGRANZAMauro ALLEGRANZA

              67.9k449117




              67.9k449117























                  4












                  $begingroup$

                  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.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$


















                    4












                    $begingroup$

                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$
















                      4












                      4








                      4





                      $begingroup$

                      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.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$



                      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.







                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited Dec 26 '18 at 20:57









                      TheSimpliFire

                      13.2k62464




                      13.2k62464










                      answered Dec 26 '18 at 20:55









                      FrpzzdFrpzzd

                      23k841112




                      23k841112























                          1












                          $begingroup$

                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$


















                            1












                            $begingroup$

                            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.






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$
















                              1












                              1








                              1





                              $begingroup$

                              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.






                              share|cite|improve this answer









                              $endgroup$



                              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.







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered Dec 26 '18 at 20:56









                              Ethan BolkerEthan Bolker

                              46.1k553120




                              46.1k553120























                                  1












                                  $begingroup$

                                  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 $qinBbb Z$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer









                                  $endgroup$


















                                    1












                                    $begingroup$

                                    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 $qinBbb Z$






                                    share|cite|improve this answer









                                    $endgroup$
















                                      1












                                      1








                                      1





                                      $begingroup$

                                      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 $qinBbb Z$






                                      share|cite|improve this answer









                                      $endgroup$



                                      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 $qinBbb Z$







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered Dec 26 '18 at 21:06









                                      Rhys HughesRhys Hughes

                                      7,0501630




                                      7,0501630















                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Le Mesnil-Réaume

                                          Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

                                          web3.py web3.isConnected() returns false always