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

Please help me prove by induction that

$\displaystyle\forall n\in {{\mathbb{N}}^{*}}$, $\displaystyle\forall {{a}_{1}},\ldots ,{{a}_{n}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{*}_{+}$, $\displaystyle \ln \left( \prod\limits_{j=1}^{n}{{{a}_{j}}} \right)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}{\ln \left( {{a}_{j}} \right)}$.

Deduce that $\displaystyle \forall n\in \mathbb{Z},\forall a\in {\mathbb{R}}^{*}_{+}$, $\displaystyle \ln \left( {{a}^{n}} \right)=n\ln a$.

share|cite|improve this question
Questions in the imperative mode are generally not appreciated. As far as I understand French, these infinitives are something similar to an imperative mode? Contentwise, in this sort of question, it's usually a good idea to indicate what it is you want to or are allowed to use to show this, since it's a relatively elementary fact and it's hard to tell which facts you (or your teacher/course/book) are considering as less elementary than this one (and thus a suitable basis for proving it). – joriki Mar 10 '11 at 15:35
quelle definition du logarithm est-ce-que vous utilisez? the logarithm is the unique continuous function with the property that $f(ab)=f(a)+f(b)$ – yoyo Mar 10 '11 at 15:40
sorry then...I just took it out from my exercises papers... it's in imperatif originally... I just wonder what's wrong with this exercise coz none did it~ – Jesse Mar 10 '11 at 16:02
thx u Arturo very mux for is now appreciated.... – Jesse Mar 10 '11 at 22:55
up vote 4 down vote accepted

In certain "transitions" classes I have taught -- i.e., for undergraduate math majors getting used to formal proof and abstraction -- I assign problems like these as (rather easy) exercises in induction, the point being that the usual "binary" form of the identity is assumed, so here

$\log(xy) = \log x + \log y$.

(I am also guessing that the English translation of "par récurrence" is "by induction" and not, for instance, "by recurrence".)

If this is the case, see e.g. $\S 5$ of this handout on induction for some similar examples of such induction proofs. The main idea here is that you have a product like $x_1 \cdots x_n x_{n+1}$ and you "cleverly" regroup it as $(x_1 \cdots x_n) \cdot x_{n+1}$ -- i.e., first a product of $n$ terms, to which your induction hypothesis applies, and then a binary product, to which your basic identity applies.

share|cite|improve this answer
oui~ merci pour ça... – Jesse Mar 11 '11 at 4:23

HINT $\rm\displaystyle\ \ \ \ f(n)\ =\ \prod_{j\ =\ 1}^n\ a_j $

$\rm\quad \iff\ \ \ \:f\:(n)\ =\:\ a_n\ \: * \ \ f\:(n-1),\:\ \ \ f\:(0)\: = 1$

$\rm\quad \iff\ \ F(n)\ =\ A_n + F(n-1),\ \ F(0) = 0\:,\ $ with $\rm\ \ F(n) = \ln\: f(n)\:,\ \ A_n = \ln\: a_n$

$\rm\displaystyle\quad \iff\ \ F(n)\ =\ \sum_{j\ =\ 1}^n\ A_n$

The first and last equivalences are the recursive definitions of $\rm\:\Pi\:$ and $\rm\:\Sigma\:.$

The middle equivalence follows from $\rm\ \ln\ (x\ *\ y)\ =\ \ln\ x\ +\ \ln\ y\:.$

share|cite|improve this answer
merci beaucoup~ – Jesse Mar 11 '11 at 4:22

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.