You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Let a = any number
Prove that a^0 = 1, if a does not equal 0.
Last edited by mathxyz (2024-04-30 09:53:53)
Offline
Read the (number)^1 answer first.
Using rule one a^n x a^0 = a^(n+0) = a^n so a^0 acts like it is 1 so it is defined to be 1.
Bob
Children are not defined by school ...........The Fonz
You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei
Sometimes I deliberately make mistakes, just to test you! …………….Bob
Offline
Read the (number)^1 answer first.
Using rule one a^n x a^0 = a^(n+0) = a^n so a^0 acts like it is 1 so it is defined to be 1.
Bob
Ok. I totally will compare notes for a^1 = a and a^0 = 1..
Offline
[a*a*a*a... m times / a*a*a*a... n times] = a^m/a^n = a^(m-n)
Similary, for any value of x we can write:
1 = a^x/a^x = a^(x-x) = a^0
Every living thing has no choice but to execute its pre-programmed instructions embedded in it (known as instincts).
But only a human may have the freedom and ability to oppose his natural robotic nature.
But, by opposing it, such a human becomes no more of this world.
Offline
In my opinion this is not per se a "proof," but rather several explanations for why a^0=1 (for a not= 0) is a reasonable definition.
World Peace Thru Frisbee
Offline
In my opinion this is not per se a "proof," but rather several explanations for why a^0=1 (for a not= 0) is a reasonable definition.
Can you then show the actual mathematical proof?
Offline
In order to make a proof you need to start with the axioms for the behaviour of indices. As these rules are fairly obvious for powers that are positive integers I prefer to show students those first and then develop general properties from there.
I'd be interested in seeing an actual proof
Bob
Children are not defined by school ...........The Fonz
You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei
Sometimes I deliberately make mistakes, just to test you! …………….Bob
Offline
In order to make a proof you need to start with the axioms for the behaviour of indices. As these rules are fairly obvious for powers that are positive integers I prefer to show students those first and then develop general properties from there.
I'd be interested in seeing an actual proof
Bob
You are correct. I like to know the WHY of things. Anybody can memorize a bunch of formulas but knowing how to derive them is actual learning.
Offline
A definition does not have a proof.
What it does need is to be consistent with other statements in a given theory, and to be useful in the various formulas.
Bob's and KerimF's explanations show how it fits with the rules of arithmetic, as odd as it seems for a^0 = 1.
Last edited by Phrzby Phil (2024-05-04 07:37:58)
World Peace Thru Frisbee
Offline
A definition dos not have a proof.
What it does need is to be consistent with other statements in a given theory, and to be useful in the various formulas.
Bob's and KerimF's explanations show how it fits with the rules of arithmetic, as odd as it seems for a^0 = 1.
I will return to this topic at another time.
Offline
A definition does not have a proof.
What it does need is to be consistent with other statements in a given theory, and to be useful in the various formulas.
Bob's and KerimF's explanations show how it fits with the rules of arithmetic, as odd as it seems for a^0 = 1.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kPTp82EGjv8&pp=ygUNUHJvdmUgYV4wID0gMQ%3D%3D
Offline
In order to make a proof you need to start with the axioms for the behaviour of indices. As these rules are fairly obvious for powers that are positive integers I prefer to show students those first and then develop general properties from there.
I'd be interested in seeing an actual proof
Bob
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kPTp82EGjv8&pp=ygUNUHJvdmUgYV4wID0gMQ%3D%3D
Offline
Pages: 1