Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Considering a suitable set of numbers, you can construct a group using addition, and you can construct another group using multiplication. My question: Can you construct a group using exponentiation?

  • $(\mathbb{R}, +)$ is a group.

  • $(\mathbb{R} \backslash 0, \times)$ is another group.

  • Does there exist some $S \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ such that $(S, \uparrow)$ is a group?

(Here $x \uparrow y = x^y$.)

I'm going to guess "no", since exponentiation is asymmetric and hence needs two inverses (roots and logarithms). So maybe you can have some other group-like structure? (But which one?)

share|cite|improve this question
You can have nonabelian groups. The main problem is that $\uparrow$ is not associative. – Xabier Domínguez May 11 '12 at 15:41
Oh man, I hadn't even thought about associativity! – MathematicalOrchid May 11 '12 at 15:45
;) You cannot go very far without it. – Xabier Domínguez May 11 '12 at 15:45
what happens if you consider ${0,1}$ as the candidates . – Theorem May 11 '12 at 15:46
Whether a group's binary operation is denoted $+$ or $\cdot$ is a notational convention that fits the better (more intuitive) frame of mind for a particular context. If we really wanted to, we could denote addition by $\cdot$ or multiplication by $+$, perhaps in a parallel universe, and there would be no issue. The real question is, in what conceptual sense could an arbitrary associative binary operation on a set be thought of as "exponentiation"? Fundamentally, I think exponentiation's moral purpose is to merely transfer from one structure to another - not build one from scratch. – anon May 11 '12 at 15:49
up vote 3 down vote accepted

$x^y$ is not even well-defined for many real arguments. (For example, $(-2)^\frac12$.) You would have to begin by restricting the domain to non-negative reals.

But even then, exponentiation is not in general associative, since $x^{(y^z)} \ne (x^y)^z$, and to make it associative you would have to restrict the domain so severely that what is left would not be very interesting.

share|cite|improve this answer
Not associative. Definitely not a group then. Perhaps some kind of loop or quasigroup? – MathematicalOrchid May 11 '12 at 15:47
Well, if you restrict it to the set $\{1\}$… – MJD May 11 '12 at 16:22

This isn't quite what you want, but it's a nice example and deserves to be widely known: the reals exceeding 1 form a (commutative!) group under the operation given by $a*b=a^{\log b}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Is that $>1$ or $\geq 1$? It seems like $1$ would serve as the identity, but you wrote reals exceeding one. – chris May 12 '12 at 8:30
@chris the base of the logarithm. If you chose $\ln$ it will be $e$. – Asaf Karagila May 12 '12 at 8:33
I realized after a bit more thought my earlier comment was incorrect. Thanks for the clarification. This is a nice example. – chris May 12 '12 at 8:38
I like this answer. – MathematicalOrchid May 12 '12 at 12:46
It's interesting...where and how many times have you seen this example used? – rschwieb May 20 '12 at 16:52

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.