Register to reply

Defining things by induction

by Ed Quanta
Tags: defining, induction, things
Share this thread:
Ed Quanta
#1
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
2)k^mk^n=k^(m+n)
and
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 Phys.org
Sapphire talk enlivens guesswork over iPhone 6
Geneticists offer clues to better rice, tomato crops
UConn makes 3-D copies of antique instrument parts
NateTG
#2
Feb10-04, 05:41 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,538
"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.
HallsofIvy
#3
Feb11-04, 10:57 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,339
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
#4
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