Number Systems, Chapter 6 found as the supremum
of the numbers whose square stays below (Number Systems: From to , Proposition 6.1.4).
The same construction gives every -th root, and the
factorization of from Section 1.1 makes it work for every
exponent. Roots then give powers with rational
exponents, ,
once we check that the value does not depend on how the
fraction is written.
These are the “real powers” of the chapter title as far
as this chapter goes: rational exponents of positive
reals. Chapter 8 extends them to every real exponent.
The section ends with two estimates that make the limits
and routine.
n-th
roots
For ,
Number Systems, Chapter 6 built the square root
as the supremum of a set (Number Systems: From to , Proposition 6.1.4).
An exercise there did the same for cube roots (Number Systems: From to , Exercise (B2: Cube roots)).
For a general exponent the construction is the same.
Only the estimate for needs a new tool, and Lemma 1.1.8
supplies it. Here is written . Powers in are those of Proposition 1.1.1
with . They
follow the same recursion as Number Systems: From to , Definition 4.2.1
(b).
For example,
is the cube root of : it is non-negative,
and . No
other non-negative number has cube . The lemma says the
same for every and every exponent .
Lemma
1.5.1 (Real n-th Roots)
Let
with .
Idea. Part (a) is the factorization
: both factors are
positive. For (b), let be the supremum of the
set of
non-negative with
, and rule
out and
.
If ,
we want
with . Working backwards: for , the same
factorization writes as times a sum of terms, each at most
. So
, and it is enough that this be
at most half the room . That gives .
If ,
we want
with still, which makes a smaller upper
bound. Now , and it is enough that
this equal the excess . That gives .
Before reading on: where is completeness used,
and why must in the first case?
Proof. Three facts are used
throughout. All three rest on Number Systems: From to , Proposition 2.4.3
(c), or equality.
- (i) A power of a
non-negative real number is non-negative, and a power of
a positive one is positive. This is induction on the
exponent.
- (ii) If , then for every . If , then . Both are
induction, with .
- (iii) If and
,
then . Each step multiplies by a
non-negative number.
(a) By Lemma 1.1.8
in the commutative ring , Every term of the sum is , and the term with
is , since
. So
the sum is . Also . Hence (Number Systems: From to , Proposition 2.4.3
(c)).
(b)
Uniqueness. If and , say , then by (a); so at most one non-negative has .
Existence. If , then works, since . Let , and let Put . Since , , so . Put .
If , then
, so
and ;
hence is an upper
bound of . Since
is a complete
ordered field (Number Systems: From to , Theorem 5.5.2),
has a supremum;
let . Then .
Case . Let It depends only on , and , and , since and .
By Lemma 1.1.8,
Since , each term satisfies . This uses (a)
or equality, the third fact, and the rule for adding
exponents. A sum of terms, each at most
, is
at most . Hence So , and , against being an upper bound of
.
Case . Let which depends only on , and , and is positive. Since
, we have
, so ; thus . By
Lemma 1.1.8
and the same bound, with , each of the terms of is at most , so that is, . Now let . If , then (a) gives ,
against . So
, and
is an upper
bound of smaller
than , against
being the
least upper bound.
Both cases are impossible, so by trichotomy,
and works.
For , the
number
is non-negative and squares to , so it is , by the
uniqueness in Number Systems: From to , Proposition 6.1.4.
The two values of were found by working
backwards from what we wanted. Each depends on , and only. Completeness was
used once, to produce . For the root is
positive, since . For instance and ,
since and
, and both are non-negative. In
this chapter the symbol is used only
for non-negative real . Chapter 8 adds odd
roots of negative reals, and Chapter 3 shows why it
could not mean “the” -th root of a complex
number.
The last example already used the working principle
of this section. To identify a root, we do not compute
it: we take a candidate, check that it is non-negative,
and check that its -th power is . Uniqueness in part (b)
does the rest. Each equation between roots follows this
way from a rule for powers.
Lemma
1.5.2 (Rules for n-th Roots)
Let
be integers and with .
- (a) .
- (b) .
- (c) .
- (d) If , then .
Idea. Each of (a)–(c) says that
some non-negative number is a certain root. So we raise
the right side to the relevant power, compute with the
laws of powers, and let the uniqueness in Lemma 1.5.1
(b) identify it. Number Systems identified
inverses the same way (Number Systems: From to , Lemma 4.1.1):
name the defining property, check it, use uniqueness.
Part (d) is the converse of part (a) of Lemma 1.5.1,
proved by contradiction.
Proof. Write
and , so , and . Powers and products of non-negative reals
are non-negative (Number Systems: From to , Proposition 2.4.3
(c), by induction for powers).
(a) The number
is , and by
Proposition 1.1.1
(c). By the uniqueness in Lemma 1.5.1
(b), .
(b) The number
is , and by Proposition 1.1.1
(b), used twice with , By uniqueness, .
(c) Let ,
so and
. By Proposition 1.1.1
(b), . By uniqueness with the exponent , .
(d) Let , and suppose
. If , then . If
, then
by Lemma 1.5.1
(a), since .
Both contradict . So .
Part (d) and Lemma 1.5.1
(a) together say that for non-negative reals, holds if
and only if : taking an -th root and raising to
the -th power both
preserve strict order. That two-way comparison is how
roots are compared without computing them, as in Example (Rational powers by hand)
below.
Quick check. Simplify in
two ways.
Solution. By Lemma 1.5.2
(c) with ,
, it is , since
and . Directly, (as and ), and .
Integer
powers
A rational exponent may have a
negative numerator, so before we can define we need for negative integers
. There is only
one sensible choice. If the law is to
survive, then , so has to be the
inverse of . For
instance,
must be the inverse of , which is . The definition makes
this so, and it works in every field. Chapter 3 meets it
again in , in an
exercise.
Definition
1.5.1 (Integer Powers)
Let be a
field, with
, and . Put where the right side is the power of Proposition 1.1.1.
Only could
clash with the earlier meaning: , and both readings
give , since . For
the symbol
is new. At
it already
meant the inverse, and the definition agrees with it:
. The base must be non-zero, since has no inverse. For
instance, in ,
.
Proposition
1.5.3 (Laws of Integer Powers)
Let be a
field, let with and , and let .
- (a) .
- (b) .
- (c) .
- (d) and .
- (e) If is an ordered field and
, then
.
- (f) If is an ordered field,
and , then .
Idea. Each law is known for
exponents in
(Proposition 1.1.1).
A negative exponent is a natural one applied to , and
lets us move the inverse wherever it is needed. So each
law splits into sign cases, and each case reduces to
.
The other cases reduce to natural exponents in the
same way. One case shows the pattern: (a) with . Write
with . We use (d) for
natural exponents, ,
proved first among the sign cases below. If , then , so
If , then and , so Both computations use only the laws for
natural exponents, parts (a) and (c) of Proposition 1.1.1,
together with that identity and .
↺Second readingThe
sign cases for integer powers
Proof. Throughout, exponents
written
are in , and
laws “for ” are
Proposition 1.1.1.
Note for
every (induction:
).
(d) Natural
exponents. For , by part (d) for , and by part (c) for . By Number Systems: From to , Lemma 4.1.1
(a), , and it is non-zero, since its
product with is
.
Negative exponents. For with , ,
and by Number Systems: From to , Lemma 4.1.1
(a). So (d) holds for every . In particular,
for every , by the definition for , and for because
both sides equal : the right side is
.
(e) Both
:
part (a) for .
Both negative: let and . By the definition
and part (a) for applied to , Mixed signs. The case is the
computation above. The case is the
same with and
exchanged, since
is
commutative.
(f) . If
, this is
part (b) for .
If ,
then , by part (b) for applied to . . Since
by (d),
the definition and (d) give , and the case just proved, with
exponents and , gives .
(g) : part
(c) for .
: and (Number Systems: From to , Lemma 4.1.1
(a)), so
(h) For , by induction:
, and
if , then
by Number Systems: From to , Proposition 2.4.3
(c). (This is the proof of Sets and Functions, Proposition 3.3.4
(e), which works in any ordered field.) For , by Number Systems: From to , Proposition 3.2.2
(a), so by the case just proved.
(i) First, for every
, by
induction: , and if , then , by Number Systems: From to , Proposition 2.4.3
(c) with the positive factor . Now let , and put . By (a), , and by (e). Multiplying by (Number Systems: From to , Proposition 2.4.3
(c)) gives .
Quick check. Compute and
in .
Solution. and , so the product is .
(Alternatively, and by Proposition 1.5.3
(b), (a).) And , since the
inverse of
is .
Rational
powers
Which number should be? Reading the
exponent as “square of the cube root” gives . But , and reading the same way
gives . That is
again, as it must
be if the notation is to mean anything: its sixth power
is . A definition that picks one way of writing
the exponent is a definition by representatives, and it
is only a definition if every representative gives the
same value.
A rational power is a power of a root, and it
does not matter which fraction names the
exponent.
Definition
1.5.2 (Rational Powers)
Let
with , and
let .
Write with and , and put
In words: take the -th root of the base,
which is positive since , and raise it to the integer power of Definition 1.5.1.
The base is strictly positive, so that
negative is
allowed. Negative bases cannot be admitted at all; an
example after the next proposition shows why.
The definition chose one fraction for , and every rational
number has infinitely many. So there is something to
check before
means anything.
Proposition
1.5.4 (Rational Powers Are Well Defined)
Let
with . If
and
satisfy , then For , the number is the integer power
of Definition 1.5.1,
and for
it is .
Try it first (ten minutes): show , then say what the general
proof must compare.
Idea. The attempt runs into the
fact that we cannot compute either root, so we cannot
compare them directly. In the trial case, squaring the
right side gives ,
so it is the non-negative number with square : uniqueness of square
roots identifies it. In general, raise both candidates
to the power ,
which clears both roots: the left side becomes and the right side
, and is what
means. Two positive numbers with the same -th power are equal by
Lemma 1.5.1
(b). This is the method of Sets and Functions, Example (Method: checking that a definition on classes is well defined):
two representatives, their relation unwound, equal
outputs.
Proof. Let and . The roots are positive since
, so by Proposition 1.5.3
(e). By Proposition 1.5.3
(b), used twice with , and in the same way . Multiplying
by gives . Hence , with
, and the
uniqueness in Lemma 1.5.1
(b) with exponent gives .
For , use the representative : , since
and , so . For , use : .
So depends
on alone, and the
two special cases say that the new notation extends the
old: , and all
mean what they meant before.
Warning. Negative bases do not have
rational powers. The real number has cube , so one might want
.
But , and read through the power would
be the square of a sixth root of , and no real number
has sixth power ,
since an even power is . Reading as “sixth root of
the square” gives , positive. No value is independent of the
representative, which is why Definition 1.5.2
asks for .
With well-definedness in hand, the laws come almost
for free. For instance, , and as computed above: the first law below says
this always works. Any two rational exponents can be
written over one denominator. Then most laws become
statements about integer powers of one root .
Proposition
1.5.5 (Laws of Rational Powers)
Let
with and
, and let
.
- (a) .
- (b) .
- (c) .
- (d) .
- (e) If and , then .
- (f) If and , then .
Idea. Write and over a
common denominator ; Proposition 1.5.4
allows any representative. Then and with ,
and (a), (d), (e) become laws of integer powers of (Proposition 1.5.3).
Proof. Write
and with ,
and put , ,
. Then and . Let
. By Proposition 1.5.4,
and .
(a) Since ,
Proposition 1.5.4
gives . Adding integer exponents, .
(b) Let . Then : otherwise , and either and , or and by
Lemma 1.5.1
(a); both contradict . From , multiplying by , we get . By Proposition 1.5.3
(f), .
↺Second readingProofs
of (b), (c), (d), (f)
Proof. Keep , as
above.
(d) by Proposition 1.5.3
(e), since .
(e) Here it is
convenient to write with its own denominator . Let , which is
positive by (d). Let and , where
.
Both and are positive by (d).
Every change of the form below is Proposition 1.5.3
(b). By the definition, , and Hence Also , so . So
,
and the uniqueness in Lemma 1.5.1
(b) with exponent gives . This covers and as well, because
only integer-power laws were used.
(f) By Lemma 1.5.2
(a), , and both factors
are positive. By Proposition 1.5.3
(c),
(g) Let and . Since
and , . Let .
By Lemma 1.5.2
(d), . By Lemma 1.5.1
(a) with the exponent , .
Part (e) needs : for every power is , and for the order
reverses, as Exercise C1 shows. Part (f) needs : for both sides are
.
Example
(Rational powers by hand)
Compute and .
Which is larger, or ?
Solution. Since and , , so
.
Since ,
. The product is .
Since and , . So .
For the comparison, raise both to the sixth power,
which clears both roots: by Proposition 1.5.5
(b), and . Both numbers are positive. If , then
by Lemma 1.5.1
(a) (or equality), which is false. So .
Means and
estimates with roots
Section 1.3 proved the inequality between the means
in the form , without roots, because none were
available. With -th roots it takes its
familiar shape. For the two numbers and , the geometric mean is
, and the arithmetic mean is .
Corollary
1.5.6 (Geometric Mean Below Arithmetic
Mean)
Let be
an integer and let with for every . Then with equality if and only if
.
Idea. This is Theorem 1.3.3
with an -th root
taken on both sides. The theorem bounds the product
, and the root
turns that bound into one on . Taking roots preserves
order by Lemma 1.5.2
(d).
Proof. Let and . By Theorem 1.3.3
(a), . If , then by Lemma 1.5.1
(a), since ;
so . If
, then , and
Theorem 1.3.3
(b) gives . Conversely, if all are equal, then by
Theorem 1.3.3
(b), so by uniqueness, as .
The last results of this chapter turn roots into
estimates. How close to is for large
? Write the root
as with . Then , and a
power of is
exactly what Example (Method: bound a power from below)
bounds from below by one term. A lower bound on is an upper
bound on . For
instance, , and part (a) below gives the bound .
Proposition
1.5.7 (Two Root Estimates)
- (a) If , and is an integer,
then .
- (b) If is an integer,
then .
Idea. The method of Example (Method: bound a power from below),
read for a root: write the root as , keep one term of
, solve
for . For (a),
Bernoulli’s term
suffices, because the left side is fixed. For (b) the
left side is ,
which grows, so the linear term gives only ; the
quadratic term is needed.
Proof. In both parts let be the number in
question, or , and let . Since
(as
and ), Lemma 1.5.2
(d) gives
whenever the radicand is , with equality if it is . So , which is the
left inequality in both parts.
Both bounds are explicit for every , so a threshold for any
tolerance can be read off. The limit statements follow
at once by Number Systems: From to , Example (Method: proving a limit from the definition).
Example
(Roots tend to one)
Show that for every real , and that .
Solution. First limit. By
Proposition 1.5.7
(a), for . If , the sequence is
constant. If , let , choose an integer , so ; it depends on
and only. For
, .
Second limit. By Proposition 1.5.7
(b), for . Let and
choose an integer ; then , and depends on only. For
, , so (Number Systems: From to , Proposition 3.2.2
(b)). Square roots preserve strict order between
non-negative numbers (Lemma 1.5.2
(d) with ). So
. Hence .
Quick check. Find an with for
every .
Solution. By Proposition 1.5.7
(a) with ,
. And exactly when , that is, . So works. (The bound
is generous: already .
The definition asks for some threshold, not the
least.)
Exercises
A. Check your
understanding
Exercise
(A1)
- (a) Where does the
proof of Lemma 1.5.1
use that is
complete?
- (b) Why is imposed in the
case of
that proof?
- (c) Run the first
steps of the existence proof for , : what are , and ?
- (d) Compute .
- (e) True or false:
for all real and all .
Solution.
(a) Once: to
produce , from a non-empty set bounded above. Nothing
else in the proof needs it.
(b) So that . Then
each of the terms
is at most , a bound that does not involve , and can be solved for.
Without the
terms would grow with .
(c) ,
, and : the proof shows , and is the non-negative
number with cube .
(d) , so .
(e) True: Proposition 1.5.5
(b).
B. Practice
Exercise
(B1: Simplify)
Simplify, for real :
- (a) ;
- (b) ;
- (c) .
Solution.
(a) , since
; so .
(b) By Proposition 1.5.5
(c) and (b), .
(c) and , so the quotient is
.
Exercise
(B2: Compare without a calculator)
Put ,
and in increasing
order. Justify your answer.
Solution. Raise all three to the
power , a common
multiple of ,
, . By the law , All three numbers are positive, and for
positive ,
forces :
otherwise
and by Lemma 1.5.1
(a) (or equality). Hence .
Exercise
(B3: An explicit N)
Find an such
that for every .
Solution. By Proposition 1.5.7
(b), for , so it suffices
that . Both sides are non-negative. Squaring and
taking square roots both preserve strict order between
non-negative numbers. So this holds exactly when , that is, when . So works: for , .
C. Going deeper
Exercise
(C1: Chapter check: powers of a base below one)
Let
with , and let . Prove:
- (i) if , then ;
- (ii) if , then .
Solution. Put .
Since , Number Systems: From to , Proposition 3.2.2
(b) gives . For every , : with , by
uniqueness (as and ), and for every by Proposition 1.5.3
(d). So, by Proposition 1.5.5
(c), and for every .
What a complete answer needs. (10
points) - 2: reduces to a base above one, , with
the reason. - 3: the link to that base, from (c)
of the laws and . - 2: the law (e) applied to a base above
one, not to . - 2:
the reversal of order under reciprocals, with positivity
from (d). - 1: (ii) from (i), with .
Alternatively, over a common denominator , :
- 3: with the reason, and .
- 2: , with the reason (for instance ).
- 2: , using .
- 2: the conclusion .
- 1: (ii) from (i), with . Slips that lose
the step: applying (e) to a base .
Exercise
(C2: The compound sequence is bounded)
Show that for every integer .
Solution (Hint 1). Expand by the
binomial theorem and compare the term with .
Solution. Let . By Theorem 1.2.3
with ,
, The term is .
Let .
By Proposition 1.2.2
(c), , and , so For , the factor lies in
. So the
product lies in , by induction on the number of factors.
Hence the term is at most , and by Example (Factorials beat powers of two).
Comparing termwise and summing the geometric series with
ratio ,
where the last step uses .
Together with Example (The compound-interest sequence increases),
which showed that the sequence increases, this says the
compound sequence is increasing and bounded above by
.
What a complete answer needs. (10
points) - 3: the binomial expansion, with each term
written in the factorial form. - 3: the termwise bound
, with the factors shown to
lie in , and
bounded by a summable comparison sequence (for instance
),
with reason. - 2: the comparison sum evaluated exactly
(geometric or telescoping). - 2: the strict inequality
, with its
reason. Slips that lose the step: bounding by
without the factor-by-factor reason, or summing the
comparison series to infinity.
R. Review
Exercise
(R1)
Compute for .
Solution. The tool is telescoping
(Example (Method: telescoping)).
Since ,
,
so . Since , With and , Theorem 1.1.7
(a) gives
Exercise
(R2)
Compute for .
Solution. By the binomial theorem
(Theorem 1.2.3)
in with and , the sum is .
Exercise
(R3)
Prove that .
Solution. The first tool is keeping
the dominant term (Example (Method: keep the dominant term)).
The second is proving a limit from the definition (Number Systems: From to , Example (Method: proving a limit from the definition)).
For , , so by Lemma 1.5.2
(d) (or equality). Here by
uniqueness, since . Hence the numerator is at most . The denominator is at
least ,
so Let and choose an integer ;
then , and
depends on only. For
the
distance to is at
most .
The look-alike tool, the quotient rule for limits,
does not apply to the fraction as written: neither the
numerator nor the denominator converges.