Why is b^(m/n) equal to the mth power of the nth root of b?

  • Thread starter Thread starter split
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equality b^(m/n) = (n√b)^m, with participants seeking clarity on the concept of exponentiation and roots. One user initially struggles with the idea of multiplying a number by itself less than one time but later realizes that b^(m/n) represents the mth power of the nth root of b. The conversation highlights the importance of defining exponent rules consistently, especially for non-integer values, to maintain the validity of mathematical operations. Participants clarify that the laws of exponents must hold true for all numbers, leading to the definition of roots and fractional exponents. The thread concludes with an acknowledgment of the complexity of the topic and the need for precise definitions in mathematics.
split
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Why does b^(m/n) = (nsqrt(b))^m?

Hi, as the subject says, why does b^(m/n) = (n√b)^m?

I don't understand how you can multiply a number by itself less than one times.

Thanks.

EDIT: Finally GOT IT RIGHT.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
b^(m/n)= nã(b^m) "the nth root of b to the m power"
you could also write (nãb)^m
Aaron
 
I meant that but I was just thinking about too many things. It's been fixed. I'm asking for an explanation of why that is true.
 


Originally posted by split
Hi, as the subject says, why does b^(m/n) = (n√m)^m?

I don't know that it does. 31/2=(2[squ]1)1=2?
 
The stupid errors just keep piling up don't they!

I take it you mean: "Why is bm/n= n &radic (b)m?"

Let's start with "I don't understand how you can multiply a number by itself less than one times."

You can't. bn is defined as "multiply b by itself n times" only if n is a positive integer (counting number).

However, in that simple situation, we quickly derive the very useful "laws of exponents": bmbn= bm+n and (bm)n= bnm.

We then define bx for other number so that those laws remain true.

For example, IF the laws of exponents are to be true for x= 0, then we must have bn= bn+0= bnb0. As long as b is not 0 we can divide both sides of the equation by bn to bet b0= 1. That is, we MUST define b0= 1 or the laws of exponents will no longer hold.

Now we can see that bn+(-n)= b0= 1. If the laws of exponents are to hold for negative exponents as well, we must have bnb-n= bn+(-n)= 1 or, again dividing both sides of the equation by bn, b-n= 1/bn.

Finally, if (bm)n= bmn is to be true for all numbers, we must have (b1/m)m= b1= b. Since n &radic (b) is define as "the positive number whose nth power is b, we must define b1/m= m &radic (b).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks HallsOfIvy, your explanation was very clear.

And yes, the errors kept piling up! I have fixed everything but the subject (I don't believe it can be changed. Am I wrong?) so if anyone wants to read it in the future it should make sense.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top