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.

There are many curves that extend integer exponentiation to larger domains, so why was this one chosen?

share|improve this question
6  
Because $e$ is the most awesome number, clearly. –  David Peterson Feb 7 at 19:57
1  
Arguably, any choice of exponential and its logarithm could be chosen but $e$ and $\ln$ play well with differentiation (in that they don't pick up factors of $\ln(a)$ if your base was $a$). –  Cameron Williams Feb 7 at 19:59
1  
Exponentiation can be defined in different manners, for example by sequences. –  Jose Antonio Mar 2 at 5:05

6 Answers 6

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I believe there is only one function $f(x, y)$, $f: \mathbb{R}^{+} \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfying

  1. $f$ is continuous,
  2. $f(x, 1) = x$,
  3. $f(x, y + z) = f(x, y) f(x, z)$,

and that is $f(x, y) = x^y = e^{\ln(x) y}$, where $e^x$ is defined by the exponential function. Note that 2) and 3) fix the values of the function at rational $y$ (e.g. you can see that $f(x, 1/3) = \sqrt[3]{x}$, for example) with odd denominator in lowest terms, and 1) fixes them at the other rational and at irrational $y$. 3) is just the exponent law $x^{n + m} = x^n x^m$ for integer exponents assumed to hold for real ones.

share|improve this answer
    
Very cool. Do you know where I can find a formal proof of this? –  enthdegree Feb 7 at 22:50
    
I don't know of a source offhand, though Wikipedia mentions for the $x = e$ case to look at Rudin's 1976 analysis text, chapter 8, but says it's an exercise there. However, I don't think it should be too hard: just show the difference between any two candidates assumed distinct is zero on a dense set, and then by continuity it must be zero everywhere, giving a contradiction, and a proof of the uniqueness. Then just show that $e^{\ln(x) y}$ satisfies these properties. –  mike4ty4 Feb 7 at 23:06

It's economic. You define exponentiation to one base, say $e$, rigorously and reduce all other exponentiation to that case.

Edit: The reason why mathematicians chose just $e$ instead of $42$ for that purpose has reasons which go way beyond the scope of the OP's question.

share|improve this answer
    
Why did this answer received two downvotes yesterday? What's wrong? –  Michael Hoppe Mar 8 at 18:18

Because it has some very useful properties. For example

$$ \frac{d}{dx} e^x = e^x $$

but with another base you would need a constant.

An analogy is using radians instead of degrees once you get more advanced at trigonometry. Here again

$$ \frac{d}{dx} \sin x = \cos x $$

when $x$ is in radians. In other representations you need a constant.

Unlike the radians case, $e$ has some other very special properties that are both practical and worthy of study for their own sake.

For example $e^x$ has a very simple infinite series representation: $$ e^x = 1 + x + \frac{x^2}{2!} + \frac{x^3}{3!} + \ldots $$

where $n!$ is factorial($n$).

and there is a relationship between $e$ and the trigonmetric functions $\sin$ and $\cos$:

$$ e^{ix} = \cos x + i\sin x $$

where $i$ is the imaginary number $\sqrt{-1}$.

So switching to using $e$ has some practical benefits at first, but as you go further it becomes quite fundamental to many branches of mathematics.

share|improve this answer

What you want is that $x^y$ be continuous both in $x$ and $y$, and to coincide with the (real branch of) $x^y$ for rational $y$. For simplicity, apply natural logarithms to the relevant equations.

share|improve this answer

$f(x)=e^{\ln(x)\cdot y}$ is the unique form satisfying natural exponentiation:

\begin{equation}\tag{1}f(x,0) = 1\end{equation}

\begin{equation}\tag{2} x\cdot f(x,y) = f(x,y+1)\end{equation}

and differentiability: \begin{equation}\tag{3}\frac{d}{dx}f(x,y)=y\cdot f(x,y-1)\end{equation}

share|improve this answer
    
(Except for details around $x=0$) –  enthdegree Feb 7 at 21:22
    
What do you mean by: "satisfying natural exponentiation"? –  goblin Feb 28 at 23:27
    
@user18921 Exponentiation of natural numbers. The first two properties take care of this: $f(x,0)=1$, so by $(2)$, $f(x,1)=x$ and so on inductively. –  enthdegree Mar 2 at 4:54
    
Ah I see. I would prefer to phrase it: "extending natural exponentiation" and "behaving as expected under differentiation" –  goblin Mar 2 at 5:35
    
Thank u 4 sharing, im glad u undrst& now –  enthdegree Mar 7 at 5:37

Hint: Do you know the property $a^{\log_bc}=c^{\log_ba}$. Clearly this applies here. Try to think of the proof for the above expression.

share|improve this answer
1  
This property relies on the definition of $e^x$. –  Michael Hoppe Feb 7 at 22:28
    
@MichaelHoppe, that doesn't matter though, since $e^x$ is just shorthand for $\exp(x),$ and (somewhat ironically) the $\exp$ function can be defined without reference to exponentiation. –  goblin Feb 28 at 23:26

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.