1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

My simple proof of x^0=1 part 2 (axioms)

  1. Feb 23, 2015 #1
    I was looking for explanation why x^0=1.
    is locked and i did't found solution in it from axioms. People using exp(x) and log(x) and xa-a=xax-a as given.
    If you have xa-a=xax-a for a∈ℤ and x∈ℕ+ then there is no question... (thank to M5 below...)

    But from axioms ... maybe something like this???...:

    Starting from "Principles of mathematical analysis. Walter Rudin" page 5 and 6.
    For any field F we get axioms:
    "(M3) Multiplication is commutative: xy=yx for all x,y ∈ F"
    "(M5) If x ∈ F and x ≠ 0 then there exists an element 1/x ∈ F such that
    x⋅(1/x) =1." Let assume (Rudin does not specify that) that we call this element x-1.

    On next page (6) Rudin in Remark 1.13 states:
    "One usually writes (in any field) .....x2, x3... "
    "in place of ... xx, xxx, ..."

    Let assume (Rudin does not specify that) that x=x1.

    From (M5) we get
    1=x⋅(1/x) =x1x-1
    1=x1x-1 ⋅ 1 = x1x-1 ⋅ x1x-1 = (from M3) = x1⋅x1⋅x-1⋅x-1=(from remark 1.13)=

    But we got for x2 from (M5)
    we get (not proving that if ab=c and ad=c then b=d)
    x-1⋅x-1=(x2)-1=(from now on)=x-2 let's call this (equation 1). Now we know what x-n is.

    (from remark 1.13) where ∏kX=X⋅X⋅...⋅X k-times
    XA+B=XA⋅XB and A,B ∈ℤ base on (equation 1)

    If A=1 and B=-1 we get from above
    XA+B=XA⋅XB=X1⋅X-1=(from M5 only for X≠0)=1

    we get X0=1for X≠0 because of (M5) (we don't know what 0-1 is...)
    the end ...

    and now just for fun :)
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2015
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 23, 2015 #2


    Staff: Mentor

    No, this isn't valid, but maybe you don't seriously mean it. If you do mean it, though, in the second factor you have essentially 0-1. M5 applies only if x ≠ 0.
  4. Feb 24, 2015 #3
    Yes. Proof is finished on "the end...".
    I was just trying too write something funny in the end of the post... :)

    But now I wonder.
    Let us assume that we are in Riemann sphere or just ℂ∪{∞} and (M5) is given for (X=0) by 1/0=∞.
    Of course ∞=z*∞=z*1/0=z/0.
    and now we will get 00=0/0 (of course we don't know what 0/0 is but is equal to 00 from axioms ).
  5. Feb 24, 2015 #4


    Staff: Mentor

    From the Wiki article on the extended real numbers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line :
    "The expression 1/0 is not defined either as +∞ or −∞..."
  6. Feb 24, 2015 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    In the Riemann sphere, 0/0 is left undefined for a reason. If you define it and if you allow yourself to do algebra with it, you are begging for trouble.

    In the two point compactification of the real number line, 1/0 is left undefined. In the one point compactification of the complex plane, it is defined. However... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere: "The quotients 0/0 and ∞/∞ are left undefined."
  7. Feb 24, 2015 #6
    As I said. We are not in real numbers or extended real numbers.

    But in ℂ∪{∞} or something like Riemann sphere.
    Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere you can find "...The extended complex numbers are useful in complex analysis because they allow for division by zero in some circumstances, in a way that makes expressions such as 1/0 = ∞ well-behaved...."

    There is
    +∞∉ ℂ∪{∞}
    -∞∉ ℂ∪{∞}
    ∞∈ ℂ∪{∞}
  8. Feb 24, 2015 #7
    But neither ##0/0## or ##0^0## are defined on the Riemann sphere
  9. Feb 24, 2015 #8
    When you start from axioms and wonder about x0=1 you can show that x0=1 for x≠0 because of (M5). (As I did in my first post above.)
    So when you extend (M5) with (1/0)=∞, like it is done in Riemann sphere, you should get what x0 for x=0 is.

    Thanks to (M5) with (1/0)=∞
    for x=0 we get from (M5) 0*(1/0)=1
    and from (1/0)=∞ and above we get 0*∞=1.
    and because 0 is inverse to ∞ so we will put 1/∞=0
    now from (M5) we get ∞(1/∞)=1.

    Is this a field?? What will break ?? Which axiom ?? We need just one or we will get 0*(1/0)=0/0=1.

    List of axioms from http://math.elinkage.net/showthread.php?tid=102
    A field is a set F with two operations addition and multiplication, satisfying axioms (A),(M) and (D):
    (A) Axioms for addition
    (A1) Addition is closed in F: (x,y∈F)⇒(x+y∈F)
    (A2) Addition is commutative: x+y=y+x(∀x,y∈F)
    (A3) Addition is associative: (x+y)+z=x+(y+z)(∀x,y,z∈F)
    (A4) F has additive unit: ∃0∈F∀x∈F0+x=x
    (A5) F has additive inverse:∀x∈F∃−x∈F(x+(−x)=0)

    (M) Axioms for multiplication
    (M1) multiplicationis closed in F: (x,y∈F)⇒(xy∈F)
    (M2) multiplication is commutative: xy=yx(∀x,y∈F)
    (M3) multiplication is associative: (xy)z=x(yz)(∀x,y,z∈F)
    (M4) F has multiplicative unit: ∃1∈F∀x∈F1x=x
    (M5) F has multiplicative inverse:∀x∈F∃1/x∈F(x(1/x)=1)

    (D) The distributive law: x(y+z)=xy+xz(∀x,y,z∈F)
  10. Feb 24, 2015 #9
    The Riemann sphere is not a field because the multiplication is not always defined. Specifically, something like ##0\cdot \infty## is not defined.

    It shouldn't be a field. And ##\frac{0}{0}=1## shouldn't be allowed. Indeed, because if it is, then

    [tex]1 = \frac{0}{0} = \frac{2\cdot 0}{0} = 2\frac{0}{0} = 2[/tex]

    and thus ##1=2##, which should definitely be false.
  11. Feb 24, 2015 #10
    yes, you are right.
    1 = 0/0 = ((1+1) * 0)/0 = (1+1)*(0/0) = (1+1) and would be 0=1.
    and we got zero ring...

    But main thing in this post is the proof that x^0=1. for x≠0. In any field. Is it good?
  12. Feb 24, 2015 #11
    That ##x^0 = 1## is essentially a definition. While your proof is good it requires:

    1) That ##x^0## exists
    2) That ##x^{-1}## exists
    3) That the usual law ##x^{a+b} = x^a x^b## is satisfied
  13. Feb 24, 2015 #12
    Ad.2. For x≠0 we get from (M5) that ##x^{-1}## exists.
    Ad.1. I think i will get it from 3)
    Ad.3. Is given for positive natural a,b, in Remark 1.13. For negative a,b we can get it from remark 1.13 and (equation1 --- x-1x-1=x-2
    extended to (k-times)
    x-1x-1⋅....⋅x-1 =x-k).

    Now we can take integers "a" positive, "b" negative.
    And knowing that xa and xb well defined ( as remark o_O )
    we get that xa+b for integers "a" positive, "b" negative is equal to xa⋅xb .....Extention of the definision?? Remark ?? o_O Wishful thinking?o:) Or just notation? Lets go with Extention of Remark 1.13.

    From one side if a+b>0 then we say that xa+b=xc for some positive c.
    other side if a+b<0 then we say that xa+b=xc for some negative c.
    so we need 1)?

    for b=-a and (M5) we would get xa+b=xa+(-a)=xax(-a)=xa(1/xa)=(M5)=1
    and we get xa+(-a)=x0 so exists 1) ??
    It does not look professionally.

    So in any field we have to add to axioms remark about notation like this?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook