Register to reply

Defining things by induction

by Ed Quanta
Tags: defining, induction, things
Share this thread:
Ed Quanta
Feb10-04, 05:29 PM
P: 297
For k is an element of the set of natural numbers, and m,n are elements of the set of natural numbers or the set of zero, I have to prove that

1)k^n is an element of the set of natural numbers
3) (k^m)^n= k^(mn)

I'm pretty confident that these can be shown by induction using the set of whole numbers. But it was never shown in class that k^0=1. Is there any way I can go about showing this? If anyone can just give me some feedback that would be much appreciated as it has been this entire semester. Thanks.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on
'Office life' of bacteria may be their weak spot
Lunar explorers will walk at higher speeds than thought
Philips introduces BlueTouch, PulseRelief control for pain relief
Feb10-04, 05:41 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,537
"and m,n are elements of the set of natural numbers or the set of zero"

Isn't particularly clear.

Regardless, if you're defining exponentiation inductively, then you still need a k^0 or k^1 case that is handled in some different way.

Effectively, k^0=1 by definition.
Feb11-04, 10:57 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 39,683
By " and m,n are elements of the set of natural numbers or the set of zero", I think you mean m, n are natural numbers or zero (the phrase "the set of zero" is unclear). Normally that's referred to as the "set of whole numbers".

The key thing you should be thinking about is the precise definition of "kn" that you are using. The definitions I know give k0= 1 as part of the definition.

Often a definition starts by defining k1= k, the recursively defining kn= k*kn-1 but that only works for the natural numbers. Since, for m, n natural numbers, we have kn*km= kn+m, in order to extend kn to include 0 and still have that true, we must define k0= 1 in order that kn+0= knk0= kn. Of course, to do that, you must also limit k to being a positive number. I assume you are limiting k to be a positive integer.

Ed Quanta
Feb11-04, 11:08 AM
P: 297
Defining things by induction

Yeah, I'm sorry. I forgot to say that k is defined as a natural number. Thanks bro, I think I got the proof.

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Fundamental things, emergent things General Discussion 47
Defining SR and GR? Special & General Relativity 35
Are all things in the universe caused by things that cause things like themselves? General Discussion 10
Defining 'Liberal' Current Events 18
Defining 'Conservative' Current Events 33