Proving Properties of Exponents Using Induction

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ed Quanta
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving properties of exponents using induction, specifically for natural numbers k, m, and n. The properties to prove are that k^n is a natural number, k^m * k^n = k^(m+n), and (k^m)^n = k^(mn). There is a concern about the definition of k^0, which is crucial for extending the properties to include zero. It is clarified that k^0 should be defined as 1 to maintain the validity of the exponentiation properties. The participants agree that defining k as a positive integer is essential for the proofs to hold.
Ed Quanta
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I'm sorry. I forgot to say that k is defined as a natural number. Thanks bro, I think I got the proof.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K