How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
FALSE: extends to negative bases
Statement
False claim: the definition of Rational powers of a positive base extends to negative bases, that is, the same formula assigns to every and every a real number , depending only on and on the rational .
This is the claim that Rational powers of a positive base rules out by insisting on , and this item is the reason for that restriction.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The base and the rational ; the formula under test is , in which has to denote a real number whose -th power is (Rational powers of a positive base, Existence and uniqueness of -th roots: a unique with ).
Numerals denote canonical naturals. For a natural the symbol inside denotes the image , where is the canonical order-preserving field embedding; these field images are positive for natural , and preserves products (Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing, The unique embedding of ℚ into an ordered field). So , and therefore , since means and says (Ordered field; none of the items just named states this passage from a positive element to its negative). Also (Integer powers ). This is where the numerals of this item enter ; the order on (Order on the rationals) is not what is being used when we write in .
The same rational has many representatives: in , since (The rationals as equivalence classes of pairs of integers). For a formula in and to define a function of , all representatives must give the same value, which for positive bases is Rational powers do not depend on the representative.
No real has sixth power : for every , (Laws of integer exponents, claim 1, Integer powers ), and a square is nonnegative because a nonzero one is positive (Squares of nonzero elements are positive) while (Multiplication by zero: ); so , whereas in by [A1].
Exactly one real has cube , namely : if then , since would give ; and then satisfies , so by uniqueness of the nonnegative cube root, whence (Existence and uniqueness of -th roots: a unique with , Monotonicity of and of , Sign rules for products and monotonicity of multiplication, Sign rules for products: and ).
Refutation
Assume, for contradiction, that the formula does define for negative and every rational , depending only on and ; then in particular is a real number, and the value obtained from any representative of the rational is that same number.
Read through the representative : the formula gives , where is a real cube root of , and there is exactly one such real, namely ; so the value is .
Read through the representative : the formula gives , and must be a real sixth root of , of which there is none.
The two readings are incompatible: by the assumption the rational has a single value, which step 2.1 computes to be , while step 2.2 shows that the very expression the formula prescribes for the representative names nothing at all in .
The assumption therefore fails, and the failure is not an artefact of the chosen numbers: every rational has representatives with even denominator, and a negative base has no real root of even order by the argument of [A3], so for a negative base the formula depends on the representative and Rational powers do not depend on the representative genuinely breaks down; this is exactly why Rational powers of a positive base requires .
Remarks
- Precisely what fails. For a negative base the formula does not produce two different numbers; it produces a number from some representatives and nothing at all from others. That is still a failure of well-definedness: a definition of must depend only on the rational , and this one depends on how is written.
- The odd-denominator repair, and why it is not adopted. If one restricts to rationals admitting a representative with odd, and always uses such a representative, the formula is consistent, because odd roots of negatives exist and are unique (FALSE: every real number has a real square root records this). What one gets is a partial operation, defined on the proper subset of of rationals with odd denominator in lowest terms, not on . The library does not adopt it: it is not the operation of Rational powers of a positive base, its exponents form only a proper subring of (every rational whose lowest-terms denominator is even is missing, among them, so the square root that Square roots exist: a unique with ; the positives are supplies for nonnegative bases has no counterpart here), and every later use on this page, from Weighted AM-GM inequality with rational weights to Minkowski's inequality for finite sums (rational exponent), needs arbitrary rational exponents on a base that is nonnegative anyway.
- Nonnegativity is the exact condition under which real -th roots exist for every : zero has root zero at every order (Existence and uniqueness of -th roots: a unique with ), while a negative base has no square root. Strict positivity is needed to allow every rational exponent, including negative ones, because the root must then have an inverse. The supplementary zero-base clause of Rational powers of a positive base instead covers positive rational exponents.
Depends on
Rational powers of a positive base
Rational powers do not depend on the representative
Existence and uniqueness of -th roots: a unique with
The rationals as equivalence classes of pairs of integers
Order on the rationals
Integer powers
Ordered field
Squares of nonzero elements are positive
Multiplication by zero:
Laws of integer exponents
Monotonicity of and of
Sign rules for products and monotonicity of multiplication
Sign rules for products: and
Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing
The unique embedding of ℚ into an ordered field
Square roots exist: a unique with ; the positives are
FALSE: every real number has a real square root