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

  • Level: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hootenanny
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Indices Proof
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
7 replies · 3K views
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