Can the Power Rule be applied to all rational numbers in logarithms?

brh2113
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
All information, including the problem, is attached. So far I think I've proven by induction that [tex]log (a^r)[/tex] = [tex]r log (a)[/tex] whenever [tex]r[/tex] is an integer, but I need to prove this for all rational numbers [tex]r = p/q[/tex].

We're working with the functional equation that has the property that [tex]f(xy) = f(x) + f(y)[/tex], and we're supposed to prove the equality using this. My initial thoughts were to write [tex]f(x*x^{p/q - 1})[/tex] = [tex]f(x) + f(x^{p/q - 1})[/tex], but it didn't get me anywhere. Any thoughts or suggestions?
 

Attachments

  • Logarithm.gif
    Logarithm.gif
    21.5 KB · Views: 1,409
on Phys.org
[tex]Let log_z b^n =z[/tex]
[tex]a^z=b^n[/tex]
[tex]a^{\frac{z}{n}}=b[/tex]
and by the definition of logs
[tex]\frac{z}{n}=log_a b[/tex]
then multiply by n
 
You should have said in your post what you say in your attachment: that you are to use the "functional equation" log(xy)= log(x)+ log(y) to prove that log(ar)= r log(a).
Yes, you can prove that log(an)= n log(a) for any positive integer by induction. Also if n= 0, then a0= 1 so log(a0)= 0= 0log(a).

If m is a negative integer, then there exist a positive integer n such that m+n= 0.
log(am+n)= log(an)+ log(am). With m+n= 0, what does that tell you.

Now, go back and prove that log(anx)= n log(ax) in exactly the same way (or include x from the start) for x any real number. What happens if x= 1/n?
 
Ah I see. Since

[tex]log (a^{m+n})[/tex] = [tex]log (a^{0})[/tex] = [tex]0[/tex] = [tex]log (a^{n})[/tex] + [tex]log (a^{m})[/tex],

[tex]log (a^{n})[/tex] = [tex]log (a^{m})[/tex]. This implies that [tex]nlog(a)[/tex] = [tex](-m)log(a)[/tex], which means that the formula is true for all positive and negative integers, plus zero. Right?

Now with [tex]r = p/q[/tex], I can write [tex]f(x^{p/q})[/tex] = [tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex], at which point I can say that because both p and q are integers I have

[tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex] = [tex](-p/q)f(x)[/tex].

Oh wait. I've just realized that [tex]f(x^{-n})[/tex] [tex]\neq[/tex] [tex](-n)f(x)[/tex]. The negative sign shouldn't be there: I should be trying to get

[tex]f(x^{-n})[/tex] = [tex](1/n)f(x)[/tex].

Now I'm completely lost. I think I went wrong with the true statement
[tex]nlog(a)[/tex] = [tex](-m)log(a)[/tex], because I forgot that [tex](-m)[/tex] is positive. After this error I can't seem to get back on track. Help?

EDIT: Looking at it again, I've realized another mistake:
[tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex] = [tex]pf(x)[/tex] - [tex]qf(x)[/tex], not what I stated before.
 
Last edited:
brh2113 said:
Ah I see. Since

[tex]log (a^{m+n})[/tex] = [tex]log (a^{0})[/tex] = [tex]0[/tex] = [tex]log (a^{n})[/tex] + [tex]log (a^{m})[/tex],

[tex]log (a^{n})[/tex] = [tex]log (a^{m})[/tex].
Uhhh, no. Assuming, from "am+n= a0", you mean m= -n, this is correct until the last line which should be log(an)= -log(am). That may be just a typo since you have the negative in the next line.

This implies that [tex]nlog(a)[/tex] = [tex](-m)log(a)[/tex], which means that the formula is true for all positive and negative integers, plus zero. Right?
Yes.

Now with [tex]r = p/q[/tex], I can write [tex]f(x^{p/q})[/tex] = [tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex], at which point I can say that because both p and q are integers I have

[tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex] = [tex](-p/q)f(x)[/tex].
You mean, of course, f(xp/(-q)) but where did the "-" come from? It's not necessary here. And why did you switch from log to f?

Oh wait. I've just realized that [tex]f(x^{-n})[/tex] [tex]\neq[/tex] [tex](-n)f(x)[/tex]. The negative sign shouldn't be there: I should be trying to get

[tex]f(x^{-n})[/tex] = [tex](1/n)f(x)[/tex].

Now I'm completely lost. I think I went wrong with the true statement
[tex]nlog(a)[/tex] = [tex](-m)log(a)[/tex], because I forgot that [tex](-m)[/tex] is positive. After this error I can't seem to get back on track. Help?
Don't use both m and n: you mean m+ n= 0 so that m= -n. Just use n and -n.


EDIT: Looking at it again, I've realized another mistake:
[tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex] = [tex]pf(x)[/tex] - [tex]qf(x)[/tex], not what I stated before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was mistakenly thinking of [tex]1/x^{-1}[/tex] = [tex]x[/tex] in order to write [tex]p/q[/tex] as [tex]p*(-q)[/tex], but now I see that it should be [tex]p*q^{-1}[/tex], which ruins my entire plan.

So backtracking, I think now I've reduce the problem to proving that [tex]f(x^{1/q})[/tex] = [tex](1/q)f(x)[/tex], because I already know that I can bring the [tex]p[/tex] down from before so I can ignore it for the moment while I true to prove this property for [tex]1/q[/tex]. Here I'm stuck, though.

I switched to [tex]f(x)[/tex] because that's how we're supposed to write the problem, and it didn't dawn on me that I should be writing all of the steps of the proof that way until I was half way through.
 
I've thought about your suggestions to go back and prove that

[tex]log(a^{nx})[/tex] = [tex]n log(a^{x})[/tex] for [tex]x[/tex] as any real number.

If [tex]x=(1/n)[/tex], then [tex]log(a^{nx})[/tex] = [tex]n log(a^{1/n})[/tex] = [tex]log (a)[/tex].


[tex]log(a)[/tex] is the same as [tex]n(1/n)log(a)[/tex], but I'm not sure if this proves that

the [tex]1/n[/tex] can be brought down or if it just shows that in this case such happens to

be the case. Should it prove that that is the case, though, then I will have shown that [tex]1/n[/tex]

can be treated with the power rule, in which case I can say that [tex]r = p/q[/tex] can

work with the power rule, which is what I want to prove.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
10K
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K