Can the Power Rule be applied to all rational numbers in logarithms?

In summary: I'll have to try that way from the beginning. In summary, the problem is that the author is trying to prove that log(ar)= r log(a), but is stuck because he switched from log to f and forgot to use the negation operator.
  • #1
brh2113
18
0
All information, including the problem, is attached. So far I think I've proven by induction that [tex]log (a^r)[/tex] = [tex]r log (a) [/tex] whenever [tex] r [/tex] is an integer, but I need to prove this for all rational numbers [tex] r = p/q [/tex].

We're working with the functional equation that has the property that [tex]f(xy) = f(x) + f(y)[/tex], and we're supposed to prove the equality using this. My initial thoughts were to write [tex]f(x*x^{p/q - 1})[/tex] = [tex]f(x) + f(x^{p/q - 1})[/tex], but it didn't get me anywhere. Any thoughts or suggestions?
 

Attachments

  • Logarithm.gif
    Logarithm.gif
    21.5 KB · Views: 1,330
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
[tex]Let log_z b^n =z[/tex]
[tex]a^z=b^n[/tex]
[tex]a^{\frac{z}{n}}=b[/tex]
and by the definition of logs
[tex]\frac{z}{n}=log_a b[/tex]
then multiply by n
 
  • #3
You should have said in your post what you say in your attachment: that you are to use the "functional equation" log(xy)= log(x)+ log(y) to prove that log(ar)= r log(a).
Yes, you can prove that log(an)= n log(a) for any positive integer by induction. Also if n= 0, then a0= 1 so log(a0)= 0= 0log(a).

If m is a negative integer, then there exist a positive integer n such that m+n= 0.
log(am+n)= log(an)+ log(am). With m+n= 0, what does that tell you.

Now, go back and prove that log(anx)= n log(ax) in exactly the same way (or include x from the start) for x any real number. What happens if x= 1/n?
 
  • #4
Ah I see. Since

[tex]log (a^{m+n})[/tex] = [tex] log (a^{0})[/tex] = [tex]0[/tex] = [tex] log (a^{n})[/tex] + [tex]log (a^{m})[/tex],

[tex] log (a^{n})[/tex] = [tex] log (a^{m})[/tex]. This implies that [tex]nlog(a)[/tex] = [tex](-m)log(a)[/tex], which means that the formula is true for all positive and negative integers, plus zero. Right?

Now with [tex]r = p/q[/tex], I can write [tex] f(x^{p/q})[/tex] = [tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex], at which point I can say that because both p and q are integers I have

[tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex] = [tex](-p/q)f(x)[/tex].

Oh wait. I've just realized that [tex]f(x^{-n})[/tex] [tex]\neq[/tex] [tex](-n)f(x)[/tex]. The negative sign shouldn't be there: I should be trying to get

[tex]f(x^{-n})[/tex] = [tex](1/n)f(x)[/tex].

Now I'm completely lost. I think I went wrong with the true statement
[tex]nlog(a)[/tex] = [tex](-m)log(a)[/tex], because I forgot that [tex](-m)[/tex] is positive. After this error I can't seem to get back on track. Help?

EDIT: Looking at it again, I've realized another mistake:
[tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex] = [tex]pf(x)[/tex] - [tex]qf(x)[/tex], not what I stated before.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
brh2113 said:
Ah I see. Since

[tex]log (a^{m+n})[/tex] = [tex] log (a^{0})[/tex] = [tex]0[/tex] = [tex] log (a^{n})[/tex] + [tex]log (a^{m})[/tex],

[tex] log (a^{n})[/tex] = [tex] log (a^{m})[/tex].
Uhhh, no. Assuming, from "am+n= a0", you mean m= -n, this is correct until the last line which should be log(an)= -log(am). That may be just a typo since you have the negative in the next line.

This implies that [tex]nlog(a)[/tex] = [tex](-m)log(a)[/tex], which means that the formula is true for all positive and negative integers, plus zero. Right?
Yes.

Now with [tex]r = p/q[/tex], I can write [tex] f(x^{p/q})[/tex] = [tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex], at which point I can say that because both p and q are integers I have

[tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex] = [tex](-p/q)f(x)[/tex].
You mean, of course, f(xp/(-q)) but where did the "-" come from? It's not necessary here. And why did you switch from log to f?

Oh wait. I've just realized that [tex]f(x^{-n})[/tex] [tex]\neq[/tex] [tex](-n)f(x)[/tex]. The negative sign shouldn't be there: I should be trying to get

[tex]f(x^{-n})[/tex] = [tex](1/n)f(x)[/tex].

Now I'm completely lost. I think I went wrong with the true statement
[tex]nlog(a)[/tex] = [tex](-m)log(a)[/tex], because I forgot that [tex](-m)[/tex] is positive. After this error I can't seem to get back on track. Help?
Don't use both m and n: you mean m+ n= 0 so that m= -n. Just use n and -n.


EDIT: Looking at it again, I've realized another mistake:
[tex]f(x^{p*(-q)})[/tex] = [tex]pf(x)[/tex] - [tex]qf(x)[/tex], not what I stated before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
I was mistakenly thinking of [tex]1/x^{-1}[/tex] = [tex]x[/tex] in order to write [tex]p/q[/tex] as [tex]p*(-q)[/tex], but now I see that it should be [tex]p*q^{-1}[/tex], which ruins my entire plan.

So backtracking, I think now I've reduce the problem to proving that [tex]f(x^{1/q})[/tex] = [tex](1/q)f(x)[/tex], because I already know that I can bring the [tex]p[/tex] down from before so I can ignore it for the moment while I true to prove this property for [tex]1/q[/tex]. Here I'm stuck, though.

I switched to [tex]f(x)[/tex] because that's how we're supposed to write the problem, and it didn't dawn on me that I should be writing all of the steps of the proof that way until I was half way through.
 
  • #7
I've thought about your suggestions to go back and prove that

[tex]log(a^{nx})[/tex] = [tex]n log(a^{x})[/tex] for [tex] x [/tex] as any real number.

If [tex]x=(1/n)[/tex], then [tex]log(a^{nx})[/tex] = [tex]n log(a^{1/n})[/tex] = [tex] log (a)[/tex].


[tex]log(a)[/tex] is the same as [tex]n(1/n)log(a)[/tex], but I'm not sure if this proves that

the [tex]1/n[/tex] can be brought down or if it just shows that in this case such happens to

be the case. Should it prove that that is the case, though, then I will have shown that [tex]1/n[/tex]

can be treated with the power rule, in which case I can say that [tex]r = p/q[/tex] can

work with the power rule, which is what I want to prove.
 

1. What is the power rule for logarithms?

The power rule for logarithms states that when taking the logarithm of a number raised to a power, you can bring the exponent down and use it as a coefficient in front of the logarithm.

2. How do you use the power rule for logarithms?

To use the power rule for logarithms, simply bring the exponent down and multiply it by the logarithm of the base. This will give you the logarithm of the entire expression.

3. Can the power rule for logarithms be applied to any logarithm?

Yes, the power rule for logarithms can be applied to any logarithm, whether it is a natural logarithm, base 10 logarithm, or any other base.

4. What is the proof of the power rule for logarithms?

The proof of the power rule for logarithms involves using the definition of logarithms and simplifying the expression using properties of exponents.

5. Is the power rule for logarithms the same as the power rule for exponents?

No, the power rule for logarithms and the power rule for exponents are not the same. The power rule for exponents involves multiplying exponents, while the power rule for logarithms involves bringing the exponent down and using it as a coefficient.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
940
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
516
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
808
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top