Proof of x^{3/2} = \sqrt{x^{3}} is a typo?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hootenanny
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Indices Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the expression x^{3/2} = \sqrt{x^{3}} and whether it is a typo. Participants explore the properties of exponents, seek proofs, and clarify definitions related to exponentiation, particularly for non-integer values.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses curiosity about the proof of the equality x^{3/2} = \sqrt{x^{3}} and requests resources or explanations.
  • Another participant explains the property of exponents (a^m)^n = a^{mn} through expansion, suggesting it is a straightforward matter of counting multiplications.
  • A later reply indicates that the previous explanation may only apply to positive integer exponents and suggests looking for additional resources on properties of exponents for non-integer cases.
  • One participant discusses the definitions of exponentiation, particularly for zero and negative exponents, emphasizing the need for careful definitions to maintain consistency across different types of exponents.
  • There is a suggestion that a mistake may have been made regarding the handling of negative exponents, with a participant questioning if a specific statement is a typo.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the proof of the original expression or the handling of negative exponents. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the definitions and properties of exponents.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of exponentiation, particularly for non-integer and negative values, and unresolved mathematical steps in the discussion.

Hootenanny
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
9,621
Reaction score
9
Something I have been curious about, but never had the time to think about is, I know that;

[tex]x^{3/2} = \sqrt{x^{3}}[/tex]

But I have never seen any proof of this. Does anyone have a good resource or can show me the proof here? It would be much appreciated.

~H
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
So are you asking why [tex](a^m)^n=a^{mn}[/tex]?

A simple explanation would just be to expand the left-hand side:

[tex](a^m)^n[/tex]
[tex]=a^m \cdot a^m \cdot...\cdot a^m[/tex] (n-times)
[tex]=a^{m+m+m+...+m}[/tex] (n times) since [itex]a^m \cdot a^m=a^{m+m}[/itex]
[tex]=a^{mn}[/tex] since m+m+m+...+m n times is just m times n
 
Last edited:
dav2008 said:
So are you asking why [tex](a^m)^n=a^{mn}[/tex]?

A simple explanation would just be to expand the left-hand side:

[tex](a^m)^n[/tex]
[tex]a^m \cdot a^m \cdot...\cdot a^m[/tex] (n-times)
[tex]a^{m+m+m+...+m}[/tex] (n times) since [itex]a^m \cdot a^m=a^{m+m}[/itex]
[tex]a^{mn}[/tex] since m+m+m+...+m n times is just m times n

Thank's yeah, I've just got it. Just as I was replying to this I found it in one of my old textbooks, guess I should look through my books more before asking stupid questions. Thank's again.

~H
 
I guess that proof only works for (positive) integer exponents.

I googled "properties of exponents proof" and found this webpage: http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ProofOfPropertiesOfTheExponential.html

That might explain it some more for non-integer exponents.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Ahh, makes more sense now. Thanks both of you, it is much appreciated.

~H
 
HallsofIvy said:
If we want (an)m even when m is not a positive, we must have (an)-n= an-n= a0= 1.
One of us is making a mistake with this bit. Is that a typo ?
 
Gokul43201 said:
One of us is making a mistake with this bit. Is that a typo ?

Didn't spot that, surely (an)-n = [itex]a^{-n\cdot n}[/itex]?

~H
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K