This is not so much a "proof" as an explanation of why we define
ax in certain ways.
It is easy to show that, as long as n and m are positive integers, anam= an+m. That's just a matter of counting the number of "a"s being multiplied.
Similarly, it is easy to show that, as long as n and m are positive integers, (an)[/sup]m[/sup]= anm. Again, that's just a matter of counting the number of "a"s being multiplied.
Those are very nice formulas! It would help a lot if axay= ax+y and (ax)y= axy for all x and y.
IF it were true that ana0= an+0, even when the exponent is 0, we must have an+0= an= ana0 and if a is not 0 we can divide by an to get a0= 1 as long as a is not 0.
Similarly, to guarantee that this formula is true for n negative, we must have ana-n= an-n= a0= 1: in other words that a-n= 1/an. Of course, we can only do that division if an is not 0: in other words if a is not 0.
If we want (an)m even when m is not a positive, we must have (an)-n= an-n= a0= 1. In other words, we must define a0= 1 as long as a is not 0. There is no way to define 00 that will make anam= an+m for a= 0.
Similarly, if we want anam= an+m for n or m negative, we must have ana-n= an-n= a0= 1 for all positive integers n: in other words, again dividing by an, a-n= 1/an as long as a is not 0.
As dav2008 pointed out, in order to have (am)n= amn true even when m and n are not integers, we must have (an)1/n= a1 so that a1/n= [itex]\^n\sqrt{a}[/itex] and then, that am/n= [itex]^n\sqrt{a^n[/itex].
In order to define ax for x irrational we require that f(x)= ax be continuous.