Powers are very important in algebra. We begin by defining the power of a symbol by the count of the number of times that symbol is to
be multiplied by itself, that is:
(3.29) |
However, the rules for multiplication also include division as
multiplication of inverses. We've already indicated that the inverse
relationship can be written as a negative power, .
From this we can see that:
(3.30) |
Now consider the following expression:
(3.31) |
Note first of all that if is any (say real) number, will definitely be a real number because the reals are closed under multiplication. It is less obvious, but still true, that if there is always at least one number such that this equation is satisfied (you'll have to take my word for it for now, although later on you'll come to understand this in more detail if you ever need to).
If , we have a bit of a problem. If is odd, once again there
will always be at least one for which this equation is true
because the product of an odd number of negative numbers is negative.
If is even and the real number is negative, however,
we are in trouble. That is because there is no real number
such that e.g.
(3.32) |
This, of course, is why we invented complex numbers. They are
extended from the reals so they contain numbers like the
imaginary unit defined by:
(3.33) |
With or without this complex extension, we'll find it very useful
to define the following that ``solves'' :
(3.34) |
With this definition of fractional powers, we can now define the
following algebraic rules that work for powers. These rules are very important and extremely useful. We defer any discussion of
allowed domains or real versus complex until the end. We begin with:
(3.35) | |||
(3.36) |
With a ``special'' pair of rules for in hand above, we will now
insist that in all the rules below and that (at first)
and be integers:
(3.37) | |||
(3.38) | |||
(3.39) | |||
(3.40) | |||
(3.41) |
This last rule is extremely interesting to us. It tells us that subject to the domain restrictions above that allow us to define in the first place, is a meaningful number for any rational number ! Let's summarize the domain rules one more time as they are critically important:
All of the algebraic power rules listed above therefore hold for any rational numbers and and not just integers, subject to these domain rules. This leaves us with an open question. We have proven that for very general domain restrictions (usually we just say and forget about all the rest) exists for for any rational number . What about for any real number ?
From a computational point of view it hardly matters. Any number you can punch into a calculator or program into a computer is clearly OK, and one can get (in some sense) ``as close as you like'' to any irrational number. So to a physicist or scientist, we just plain don't care. Mathematicians are a bit pickier - does (say) exist? Note that in this case there is no denominator so that we can write this out as an integer power of the inverse of an integer power of a number, where all we originally defined the notion of the ``power'' of a number as being a certain integer number of products of that number. Our original notion of power has morphed into something quite new.
Without proof, the answer is pretty much yes. As is not infrequently the case the ``best'' way to think of powers is to define powers by the rules above on the most general complex domain, then consider special cases of this definition that work for e.g. real .
In fact, we'll do one more extension and a bit of simplification
as we no longer need to worry showing that rational exponents work. Let
us note that where , and are complex numbers (yes,
the exponent too!) always has one or more solutions. In that
case:
(3.42) | |||
(3.43) | |||
(3.44) |
In the meantime, let's see what transformations these rules enable us to perform on equations containing powers.