Summary
This lesson extends powers with a positive base to arbitrary real exponents, as the supremum of the powers with rational exponents, and proves that the definition extends the earlier one, that the power is strictly monotonic in the exponent and that the laws of exponents still hold. It then studies the exponential function: its domain, its range, which is obtained from completeness and Bernoulli’s inequality, its monotonicity, its horizontal asymptote, the comparison of different bases, the symmetry between the bases and and the transformations of its graph. With Bernoulli’s inequality it shows that the exponential grows without bound and eventually overtakes the powers, and the problems compare irrational powers without a calculator, characterize the exponential by its functional equation and count the intersections of with the parabola .
Learning objectives
- Define the power with a real exponent of a positive base by means of the completeness of the reals, and justify that it extends the power with a rational exponent.
- Prove the monotonicity of the power with respect to the exponent and the laws and with bracketing arguments between rational powers.
- Describe the exponential function (domain, range, monotonicity, asymptote, comparison of bases), prove that it takes every positive value and construct the graphs of its transformations.
- Compare powers with irrational exponents, solve simple exponential inequalities and reason about the growth of the exponential compared with the powers.
The power with a real exponent
In the lesson on powers with rational exponents, was defined for and rational , and it was proved that the definition does not depend on the fraction used to write the exponent, that the laws of exponents hold and that, if , the power increases with the exponent: if are rational, . On the other hand, an expression such as is left without meaning, because is not a fraction and no root or integer power defines it.
Now, lies above the rationals , , , , which approach it from below, and the powers , , , form an increasing sequence, whose values are approximately 2, 2.639, 2.657 and 2.665. None of them exceeds , because all those exponents are less than . If this is so, the natural course is to define as the least number that is not exceeded by any power with rational and , that is, as a supremum; its existence is guaranteed by the completeness of the reals, presented in the lesson on number systems.
The definition by means of suprema
Let and let be a real number. We call the set of the powers with rational and . The power with a real exponent is the supremum of . If , one defines , where the base is greater than ; and one defines for every real .
The definition contains two claims that must be proved: that the supremum exists and that, if is rational, the new number is the same as the one already known. Without the second, the symbol would have two meanings for rational exponents.
Let . For every real , the set is nonempty and bounded above, so it has a supremum. If is rational, that supremum is the power with a rational exponent .
We use the Archimedean property, proved in the lesson on the decimal expansion of rational numbers, and the monotonicity of rational powers. The figure follows the case and : the staircase of rational powers climbs toward without reaching it.
Proof
By the Archimedean property there is a natural number greater than . The integer is a rational number less than , so its power belongs to , which is nonempty.
In the same way there is a natural number greater than . If is rational and , then , and by the monotonicity of rational powers : the number is an upper bound of .
By completeness, the nonempty bounded set has a supremum, which is the number of the definition. Being an upper bound means that no rational power with exponent less than or equal to exceeds it.
If is rational, the rational power belongs to , with , and it is an upper bound of by monotonicity. An element of a set that is an upper bound of that set is its supremum, because every smaller number fails to be a bound. The two definitions agree.
The definition for bases less than also extends the earlier one: if and is rational, by the laws of rational exponents . Moreover, the definition directly yields a rule that will be used often: for every base and every real , the power of the reciprocal base is the power with the opposite exponent. Indeed, if , the base is less than and, by definition, ; if , the base is greater than , and the definition of is precisely .
Monotonicity
The first use of the definition is to place among the rational powers: with a base greater than , every rational exponent less than gives a power less than , and every greater rational exponent, a greater power. From this follows monotonicity for arbitrary real exponents.
Let and let be real. If and are rational and , then (bracketing). Consequently, if are real, when and when (monotonicity). Moreover, for every base and every real .
We use the density of the rationals, proved in the lesson on the real line: between two distinct reals there is always a rational number. The figure shows, on the graph of , how the rationals near enclose the value .
Proof
By density there is a rational with . Its power belongs to , so it does not exceed the supremum; and by the monotonicity of rational powers it is greater than .
There is also a rational with . Every power in has an exponent less than , and is therefore less than : this number is an upper bound of and is not less than the supremum, which is the least of the bounds.
Monotonicity for . If , by density there is a rational between them, and bracketing, applied once to and once to , gives the inequality.
If , the base is greater than and the opposite exponents satisfy . By what precedes and by the definition, the inequality is reversed.
Positivity. If , the supremum is not less than any element of , and these are rational powers, positive by the lesson on rational powers. If , the number is a power with base , and .
If , monotonicity can be read in both directions: for arbitrary reals and , if and only if , and if and only if . Indeed, if we had , we would have . With a base between and , the equivalence holds with the inequality reversed. This is how powers with the same base are compared, by comparing their exponents.
Loading the content…
Completed
Sign in to save your progress