Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm studying Calculus and I've stumbled across a concept I have some difficulties in fully grasping. That is "real powers".

I don't understand the theory behind it and I think I don't understand very well how to practically UTILIZE such concepts.

THEORY

My book (Bertsch's Analisi matematica - Seconda edizione by McGraw Hill - it's an Italian book) claims that real powers such as: $$ y=a^b $$ are well-defined only when $a\ge0$.

I can see this is because if you're operating in the Reals then you shouldn't do stuff like $(-3)^\frac24$ or $(-5)^\frac12$. But it still makes little sense to me. I mean, there are $a$'s smaller than zero for which $y=a^x$ is defined. Just think of $(-7)^3$, for example, which equals $-343$. Doesn't this make the definition inadequate?

If anyone could clarify on that, I'd be extremely thankful to him/her. If you can, PLEASE, also provide references and such. It's not that I don't trust you or something, I just want to know which books/websites are the good ones.

PRACTICE

Let's say I'm doing my homework and there's an exercise which asks me to graph some function like this: $$y=\ln(x^2+3)$$ the first thing I'd usually do is finding the domain. So I consider all the restrictions typical of the function I'm handling (in this case, being a logarithm, I impose that the argument must be greater than zero) and what I get is: $\mathscr{D}_f : x<-\sqrt3 \cup x>\sqrt3$.

Now if, hypothetically, my function was: $$y=\frac{x^3 + x^2}{9x}$$ shouldn't I also consider $x>0$ as a restriction for my domain? Because, after all, $x^3$, $x^2$ and even $x$ are all forms of $y=a^b$ where $a=x$ and, respectively, $b=3$, $b=2$ and $b=1$.

What if I had a function like this then? $$ y=x^{\ln{(x^2+3)}} $$ is this one only defined when $x\ge0$? (aside from all the other conditions...)

And this? $$ y=x^x $$ is it only defined when $x\ge0$? but what if $x$ was $-5$? wouldn't then $y$ be defined and simply be $-0.00032$?

I could go on for hours with countless examples. But I suspect you might have gotten my point. Please excuse my poor English, I'm not a native speaker.

Thank you for your time.

share|improve this question
1  
You are absolutely right. It is not true that the power $a^b$ is only well-defined when $a\geq 0$. You can ascribe a well-defined value to $a^b$ for any $a$ when $b$ is a positive integer, for example; in fact, you can extend the function far more than that. But you lose a lot of its nice properties (e.g. $a^{b_1} a^{b_2} = a^{b_1+b_2}$) when you do so. It's fairly safe to say that the power $a^b$ is only defined *for all $b$* and *in a nice way* when $a\geq 0$. –  Billy Jul 27 '13 at 16:44
    
Your example with $\log(x^2+3)$ doesn't quite work. You probably meant $\log(x^2-3)$. As to the definition of exponentiation, it depends on context. If we are working purely in the integers, there is no problem in assigning meaning to such things as $(-3)^{11}$. However, if we are working in the reals, we would like $(-3)^{11}$ to be real close to $(-3)^{11.00001}$, and then we run into trouble. –  André Nicolas Jul 27 '13 at 16:45
    
In mathematics, it is acceptable for one definition to restrict itself to a particular context. We can simply provide additional definitions for other contexts (e.g. when $a\ne 0$ and $b$ is an integer), though we are duty-bound to ensure the definitions agree where they overlap. What would not be acceptable is an overextended definition that fails to define what happens in every case that $a<0$. –  Erick Wong Jul 27 '13 at 16:49

3 Answers 3

The expression $a^b$ is well-defined if $b$ is an integer (with the exception of $a = 0$ and $ b \le 0$). Indeed, the whole concept of polynomial functions depends on this fact.

However, the more generalized definition of $a^b = e^{b \ln a}$ depends on $\ln a$ being well-defined, which is only the case for positive real numbers. The logarithm of negative (or complex) numbers requires the use of complex numbers and “branch cuts”.

Response to asker's comments: No, using powers of $e$ to define other powers isn't a circular definition. In calculus, $e^x$ (perhaps less-confusingly written here as $\exp(x)$) is typically defined by either:

  • The inverse of the natural logarithm function, which itself can be defined as $\ln{x} = \int_1^x \frac{1}{t} \mathrm{d}t$
  • The solution to the differential equation $f'(x) = f(x)$, $f(0) = 1$.
  • The Taylor series $e^x = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{x^n}{n!} = 1 + x + \frac{x^2}{2} + \frac{x^3}{6} + \frac{x^4}{24} + \cdots$

(Proof that the above are equivalent is left as an exercise for the reader.)

It happens that $\exp(0) = 1$, $\exp(1) = e$, $\exp(2) = e^2$, and in general $\exp(n) = e^n$ for $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ as defined by the familiar “repeated multiplication” definition of exponentiation. Using $\exp$ and $\ln$ to define powers allows exponentiation to be generalized to irrational exponents.

share|improve this answer
    
That's extremely interesting. Could you please point me to some place where I could find more info on this "generalized definition" you mention? On a side note. That poses another question. Why are we defining powers by using logarithms? I mean logarithms are, at least according to what I learned from high school, introduced as "some kind of opposite to powers". So it's like, we're defining powers through logarithms, which are defined through powers. I know I might seem like a bit of a drag but I really can't seem to wrap my head around this thing! –  user2397616 Jul 29 '13 at 12:00
    
Also, if we define $a^b:=e^{b\ln{a}}$ we're using a power ($e^{b\ln{a}}$) to define another power! –  user2397616 Jul 29 '13 at 12:21

For the exponential function $\,f(x)=a^x\;$ to be properly defined in the whole real line we must have $\,a\ge 0\,$ ...

About the (real) logarithmic function: this is defined for positive reals, and since $\,x^2+3>0\;\;\forall\,x\in\Bbb R\,$ we have no problem here.

About $\,x^{\log(x^2+3)}\;$ : we must have here, again, $\,x>0\,$ for the same reason as above.

share|improve this answer

At some point, you must have defined $\exp$, either as $x\mapsto \sum\limits_{n=0}^{+\infty}\cfrac{x^n}{n!}$ or as the unique solution of $\left\{\begin{array}{l}y'=y\\y(0)=1\end{array}\right.$.

Then you have defined $\ln$ as the inverse function of $\exp$ or as $x\mapsto \int\limits_1^x\cfrac{1}{t}dt$.

Anyway all those definitions are equivalent.

Then you define $a^b := \exp (b\ln a)$. Then you let $e:= \exp(1)$ and you get that $e^x=\exp(x\ln e)=\exp x$. Then, the cool thing is that for integer values of $a$ and $b$, this new $a^b$ still is the one we knew. For example $2^3=\exp(3\ln 2)=\exp(\ln 2^3)=\exp(\ln 8)=8$ where the first $2^3$ is the "new" $2^3$.

So this is why we impose $a > 0$: We need $\ln a$ to be defined. But we had already defined $a^b$ for some $a$s and $b$s so we keep those too since there can't be a conflict. For example $(-1)^2=1$. We simply extended the domain of of $(a,b)\mapsto a^b$. It is possible to extend it again (with complex numbers) but you lose many properties, get multivalued functions etc.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.