6

Why does $a^{b}·a^{c}=a^{b+c}$ ?

I want proof for it, I asked professor and he replied: "I don't know, it's a property anyway that is true and that's all what you need to know."

  • 2
    Possible duplicate of http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/633054/exponential-functions – 2012ssohn Jan 10 '14 at 14:10
  • 1
    If you "want proof" of it, you should say in what setting you want it. What type of objects are $a,b,c$? – GEdgar Jan 10 '14 at 14:40
  • 1
    @GEdgar If the OP had enough knowledge to understand that question, they would have known to include the details in the first place. – Jack M Jan 10 '14 at 14:49
  • My answer should suffice as a proof for any numbers in the complex plane save 0 as a base which is a special case anyway. The argument gets a bit hairy but I've tried to xplain it as clearly as possible. Have a Gr8 Day! – Christian Chapman Jan 10 '14 at 16:06
  • 17
    Was that really the answer of your professor? If so, change schools. – mrf Jan 10 '14 at 16:13
  • 1
    Pretty much for the same reason for which $ab+ac=a(b+c)$. Exponentiation is simply a repeated multiplication, just like multiplication itself is a repeated addition. – Lucian Jan 10 '14 at 22:22
  • 1
    I smell a case of teacherly misfeasance here. C'mon, this is simple to explain. You deserve more than his desultory efforts. – ncmathsadist Jan 10 '14 at 23:51

6 Answers6

15

It is easy to see this using the definition of a power , if $b$ and $c$ are natural numbers.

$$a^b \cdot a ^c = \overbrace{a \cdots a}^{b\ times} \cdot \overbrace{a \cdots a}^{c\ times} = \overbrace{a \cdots a}^{b+c\ times} =a^{b+c}$$

With the rules

$$a^{-b}=\frac{1}{a^b}$$

and

$$a^{\frac{1}{b}}=\sqrt[b]{a}$$

it should be possible to extend it to the negative and rational numbers.

Peter
  • 84,454
  • I would continue. This rule is true for $b,c$ positive integers, so when mathematicians came to define it for negative integers (rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, cardinal numbers, ordinal numbers, etc.), they did it in such a way as to keep these rules (as much as possible). – GEdgar Jan 10 '14 at 14:35
  • I don't think you should assume $a^{-b} = \frac{1}{a^b}$ since it's quite easy, with $a^0 = 1$ ($a \neq 0$) and $\frac{a^n}{a^m} = a^{n - m}$, $a \neq 0$ (by the same reasoning you used for multiplication) that $\frac{1}{a^b} = \frac{a^0}{a^b} = a^{0 - b} = a^{-b}$. As for the rational exponent--it's more of a matter of definition of the radical symbol (now what that fractional exponent means is a different story--and not arbitrary). – Jared Feb 17 '16 at 03:34
4

We can prove it using nothing but calculus and basic limits theorems, assuming you are defining $x^y$ as $x^y:=e^{\ln(x)\cdot y}$, where $e^x$ is the normal limit definition, and the sum property of $\ln$ following from calculus (see here).

Assume $y,z\in\mathbb{R}$ (although this argument is also true in $\mathbb{C}$, but would need some more precision) and that $x$ is nonzero. We want to show that $x^y\cdot x^z = x^{y+z}$. Let's work with the left-hand-side.

$$x^y\cdot x^z=e^{\ln(x)\cdot y}\cdot e^{\ln(x)\cdot z}= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(1+\frac{\ln(x)\cdot y}{n}\right)^n\cdot\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(1+\frac{\ln(x)\cdot z}{n}\right)^n $$


Since $x$, $y$ and $z$ are bounded, we know that $x^y$ and $x^z$ are too. These two limit terms at the end are bounded and exist.

Since the two limits are bounded, the product of the limits is the limit of the products (proofs of this are available in any intro. analysis text):

$$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(1+\frac{\ln(x)\cdot y}{n}\right)^n\cdot\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(1+\frac{\ln(x)\cdot z}{n}\right)^n = $$

$$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(1+\frac{\ln(x)\cdot y}{n}\right)^n\cdot\left(1+\frac{\ln(x)\cdot z}{n}\right)^n =$$

$$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(\left[1+\frac{\ln(x)\cdot y}{n}\right] \cdot\left[1+\frac{\ln(x)\cdot z}{n}\right]\right)^n =$$

Compute:

$$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(\left[1+\frac{\ln(x)\cdot (y+z)}{n}+\frac{\ln(x)^2\cdot y\cdot z}{n^2}\right]\right)^n =$$

$$e^{ \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} n\cdot\ln{\left(1+\frac{\ln(x)\cdot (y+z)}{n}+\frac{\ln(x)^2\cdot y\cdot z}{n^2}\right)}}$$

Now lets think: if we let $k:=\frac{1}{n},$ then as $n$ goes to $\infty$, $k$ goes to $0$ s now we can rewrite this thing as a quotient:

$$=\exp \left[ \lim_{k\rightarrow 0} \frac{ \ln{\left(1+k\ln(x)\cdot (y+z) + k^2\ln(x)^2\cdot y\cdot z\right)}} {k} \right]$$

$\ln(x)^2\cdot y \cdot z$ and $\ln(x)\cdot (y+z)$ are both constants so the terms involving those go to 0. By continuity of $ln$, the numerator goes to $\ln(1)$ which is 0. The denominator also goes to 0. Now we can use L'hospitals rule (recall the standard proof, which isn't dependent on what we are trying to prove):

$$=\exp \left[ \lim_{k\rightarrow 0} \frac{\ln(x)(y+z)+2k\cdot \ln(x)^2\cdot y\cdot z} {\left(1+k\ln(x)\cdot (y+z) + k^2\ln(x)^2\cdot y\cdot z\right)} \right]$$

Now the limit of both the numerator and denominator exist and are nonzero so we can use the quotient rule of limits:

$$=\exp \left[ \frac{\lim_{k\rightarrow 0}\ln(x)(y+z)+2k\cdot \ln(x)^2\cdot y\cdot z} {\lim_{k\rightarrow 0}\left(1+k\ln(x)\cdot (y+z) + k^2\ln(x)^2\cdot y\cdot z\right)} \right]$$

And finally we can evaluate our limits:

$$=\exp \left[ \frac{\ln(x)(y+z)} {1} \right] = e^{\ln(x)(y+z)} = x^{y+z}$$

as expected.

  • 3
    Do you really think this helps the OP? – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jan 10 '14 at 21:22
  • I guess you need to know $a^b a^c=a^{b+c}$ somewhere to define $\rm exp$, $\rm log$ or prove the properties you're using, then this would be circular reasoning. – Christoph Jan 10 '14 at 21:49
  • 1
    @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez This gives a direct answer to the question the OP requested, and certainly helps future readers more than all these other answers that work almost nowhere – Christian Chapman Jan 10 '14 at 21:51
  • @ChristophPegel Indeed. Our definition for exp(...) is the limit used in the proof. We could say that our definition for ln(x) is the integral formula. We would also have to know the relationship between e and ln, namely that $e^{ln(x)}=x$ and the multiplicative property of exponentiation: $(e^a)^b=e^{a\cdot b}$, which together we could use to form a definition: $x^a=e^{ln(x)\cdot a}$. However, I feel that these two proofs are out of the scope of this problem. – Christian Chapman Jan 10 '14 at 22:15
  • 1
    This is a lot of unnecessary work. You can see that $e^{x+y}=e^x e^y$ by noting that the derivative wrt $x$ of $e^{x+y}$ is $e^{x+y}$, hence $e^{x+y} = C e^x$. You can find $C$ by examining the $x=0$ case. –  Jan 10 '14 at 23:14
  • How can you possibly assume $x^y = e^{\ln(x)y}$ without the rule $\left(a^m\right)^n = a^{mn}$??? The rule, $\left(a^m\right)^n = a^{mn}$, of which requires $a^ma^n = a^{m+n}$. – Jared Feb 17 '16 at 03:36
  • @Jared, how do you define $a^m$ in the first place, then? – Christian Chapman Feb 17 '16 at 03:38
  • @enthdegree $a^m$ has a very well defined definition for positive integers. You can then use that definition, assuming it's additive, to start to define the rational exponents, i.e. $\left(a^{\frac{1}{n}}\right)^n = a^1$ (i.e. $\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_1^n 1 = 1$). Once you have a meaning of rational exponents, it's simply a matter of extending to negatives and finally showing that rationals can approximate irrational exponents (irrational exponents do become more interesting since they lead to infinite complex solutions). – Jared Feb 17 '16 at 03:59
  • @enthdegree I am merely pointing out that one does not generally assume, a priori, that $a^b = x^{b\log_x(a)}$ rather proves that $a^b = x^{b\log_x(a)}$ using the very exponent "rules" you are trying to prove. Specifically we start with the definition of the logarithm: $a^{\log_a(x)} = x$ or $\log_a\left(a^x\right) = x$. The first question is what does $\log_a(x^y)$ equal? We have that $a^{\log_a(x^y)} = x^y$ We can say that $x = a^{\log_a(x)}$ then we have $a^{\log_a(x^y)} = x^y = \left(a^{\log_a(x)}\right)^y$--using the multiplication rules: $a^{\log_a(x^y)} = a^{y\log_a(x)}$. – Jared Feb 17 '16 at 04:17
  • @Jared, "> assuming it's additive," your definition presupposes what we are trying to prove, albeit for a small subset of the domain. If we used your construction, the answer to OP's question would be "because exponentiation was constructed to work that way" $${}$$ Here in my answer I start with a definition of exponentiation which does not require that assumption anywhere, in contrast to literally all the other answers. – Christian Chapman Feb 17 '16 at 04:22
  • @enthdegree "Here in my answer I start with a definition of exponentiation which does not require that assumption anywhere," Yes, but a definition that isn't possible without knowing how "...exponentiation was constructed to work that way". I think you are confusing the "chicken before the egg". Exponentiation came before the logarithms--with very little doubt. To say that one can go back and define exponentiation with a definition based on understood rules of exponentiation, is circular to say the least. – Jared Feb 17 '16 at 04:24
  • @Jared, No. I am not sure I understand where this object you are talking about "$\log_a$" comes into the picture... $\ln(x):=\int_1^x 1/t dt$. As I said, all properties we need follow from calculus and limits.... – Christian Chapman Feb 17 '16 at 04:36
  • @enthdegree OK, how do you assume that $x^y :=e^{\ln(x)\cdot y}$? What is the basis for assuming this other than that that definition, using your limits, results in the desired outcome that $x^yx^z = x^{y + z}$?...if you're going to use the result that $\ln(x) = \int\limits_1^x \frac{1}{t}dt$, then you need to show how that relates to an exponential before assuming it does. I really don't see the connection between the intregrals in your answer--it seems to be more geared towards L'Hospital's Rule (maybe I'm wrong and haven't looked close enough--that's quite possible). – Jared Feb 17 '16 at 04:48
  • @Jared Please refer to the first sentence of my answer and understanf the meaning of definition. If you really want to be pedantic, my answer considers two 'exponentiation's: $f_{x,N}:N\rightarrow R$ defined as "$x\dots x$ and $f_{x,R}:R\rightarrow R$ defined as in the first sentence. You can check yourself that they indeed coincide. – Christian Chapman Feb 17 '16 at 05:28
  • @enthdegree Well, you've convinced me that a down-vote is unwarranted--I still think this answer is a little convoluted. – Jared Feb 18 '16 at 00:40
2

If $b$ and $c$ are integers, then you just use the associative property for the multiplication. If $b$ and $c$ are real numbers, then you must request $a>0$. But also in that case the proof is hard and requires the definition of $a^b$ for real exponents $b$. This boils down to the completeness of the set $\mathbb{R}$ of real numbers. I tend to believe that this goes beyond your knowledge at the present time...

Siminore
  • 35,136
0

HaHa, interesting!

Let us define an operation "$*$" on the set of positive integers $\mathbb{Z}_+\times \mathbb{Z}_+\to \mathbb{Z}_+$ as follows: $a*b=\underbrace{b\times b\times\cdots \times b}_{a\text{ times}}=b^a(\text{ usual exponentiation here })$. Define $a^2:= a*a$, inductively define $a^{n+1}:=a^{n}*a$. Then $a^3=a^2*a\neq a*a^2$ in general. For example, $3^2*3=\underbrace{3\times \cdots \times 3}_{27\text{ times}}$ but $3*3^2=27\times 27\times 27$. Therefore $3*3^2\neq 3^3$.

Just for fun!

user119882
  • 1,442
0

It is quite simple. If you think properly you can see that: a^b= (axaxax...xa) {for b times} and simalrly for a^c we can have the same. Now,we are calculating the value of (a^b)x(a^c),you can say easily we are multiplying b numbers of a, and then we are multiplying the c numbers of a,with the value of the previous multiplication,silmple! Now the observation or the argument you can say,we are actually multiplying total (b+c) numbers of a's and very naturally if we assume(b+c=z)then we have z numbers of a's and if we multiply them we will get the value as a^z that is nothing but a^(b+c). so here we are proving the identity (a^b x a^c)=a^(b+c) by an simple observation. Hope the answer will help you!best of luck.

arkadeep
  • 179
0

This is just bookkeeping. If you multiply $a^n$ and $a^m$, you have $m+n$ factors of $a$, so $a^{m+n} = a^m a^n$.

ncmathsadist
  • 49,383