We opened our exploration in real analysis with the notion of . We could technically define it in the following manner:
However, it would take a ton of work to show that we do get the property , and isn’t easily generalisable to other kinds of roots. Instead, we will take advantage of the intermediate value theorem, and define roots as inverses. The intuition is that
Setting and
gives us a definition for
, where
for brevity. But first, a warm-up exercise.
Theorem 1. For any , the function
defined by
is continuous.
Proof. It is obvious that is continuous. Since products of continuous functions are continuous,
is continuous by induction.
How do we know these functions have inverses? When is odd, life is nice.
Lemma 1. Fix . Consider the sequence
. Then
as
. Furthermore, for odd
,
as
. Finally, for even
,
as
.
Proof. By definition, . Fix
. Use the Archimedean property to find
such that
. Then
Hence, for ,
.
Furthermore, if is odd, then
. It suffices to prove a more general result: if
, then
.
To that end, assume . Fix
. Since
, find
such that
implies
, which proves
as required.
Finally, for even ,
.
Theorem 2. Let be odd. Then
is bijective and
exists.
Proof. We first prove injectivity. Fix with
.
- If
, then
.
- If
and
, then
.
- If
, then
implies
, which yields
.
Thus is strictly increasing, and thus injective. For surjectivity, fix
. Since
as
, find
such that
By the intermediate value theorem, there exists such that
.
A similar argument shows that for even , if we restrict the domain of
to
, we still get inverses.
Theorem 3. Let be even. Then
is bijective and
exists.
This will help us define rational exponents in a future post.
—Joel Kindiak, 19 Dec 24, 2138H
Leave a comment