How do you prove a^{x}=e^{xlna}?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Lipi
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
6 replies · 3K views
Lipi
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
It's not a homework, I just want to understand the e. Just don't know enough yet to grasp it.
Can someone help me prove that this is eaqual:

a[tex]^{x}=e^{xlna}[/tex]

for example

10[tex]^{x}=e^{xln10}[/tex]

How do you come from 10[tex]^{x}[/tex] to [tex]e^{xln10}[/tex]

Thanx.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take logarithms of both sides of the equation, and see what you get.
 
You get zero on both sides, that's all fine. I already know it's the same.

But if you have a function y=a[tex]^{x}[/tex],

how do you get to y=e[tex]^{xlna}[/tex] being the same thing?
 
Lipi said:
You get zero on both sides...
I don't know what you mean. How come, zero? What is the logarithm of a^x ? And of e^(x ln a) ?
 
Oh i just got it.:shy:

Just found the rule e[tex]^{lna}=a[/tex].

Thanx for the kick in the right direction, i appreciate it:smile:
 
Do you understand WHY eln a= a? Quite simply because "ln x" is DEFINED as the inverse function to ex! That should have been one of the first things you learned about logarithms.


(And, just to shortcut possible objections, yes, it is quite possible to define [itex]ln(x)= \int_1^x 1/t dt[/itex] and then define y= ex to be the inverse of THAT function. But still, because they are inverse function eln a= a and ln(ea)= a.
 
HallsofIvy said:
(And, just to shortcut possible objections, yes, it is quite possible to define [itex]ln(x)= \int_1^x 1/t dt[/itex] and then define y= ex to be the inverse of THAT function. But still, because they are inverse function eln a= a and ln(ea)= a.

Well, to go even further, the only reason to call it a logarithm is because the integral behaves exactly like one, thus the properties of logarithms in general should have been studied before anything about Euler's number. :D