Consider the following:
(-1)2/2 = ((-1)1/2)2 = (+/- i)2= -1 = (-1)1 as expected.
However, ((-1)2)1/2 = (1)1/2 = +/- 1. (Here I am considering all roots, not necessarily principal)
Hence it is not necessarily true that am/n = ((a)1/n)m = (am)1/n. This, of course, flies in the face of amn = (am)n.
So, subsequent to some investigation, I believe I have an understanding, which I ask you to corroborate for me.
First, I believe that we typically define am/n as, am/n = ((a)1/n)m ; a real, m and n integers. In using this definition, I inevitably get the same result whether m and n are relatively prime or not. That is (-1)4/6 = ((-1)1/6)4 = (-1)2/3 = ((-1)1/3)2 = 1, -1/2 +/- sqrt(3)/3.
And, in keeping with that definition, it seems that, in general, we have am/n = (am)1/n provided m and n are relatively prime.
Does this sound reasonable?
Thanks,
Rich
(-1)2/2 = ((-1)1/2)2 = (+/- i)2= -1 = (-1)1 as expected.
However, ((-1)2)1/2 = (1)1/2 = +/- 1. (Here I am considering all roots, not necessarily principal)
Hence it is not necessarily true that am/n = ((a)1/n)m = (am)1/n. This, of course, flies in the face of amn = (am)n.
So, subsequent to some investigation, I believe I have an understanding, which I ask you to corroborate for me.
First, I believe that we typically define am/n as, am/n = ((a)1/n)m ; a real, m and n integers. In using this definition, I inevitably get the same result whether m and n are relatively prime or not. That is (-1)4/6 = ((-1)1/6)4 = (-1)2/3 = ((-1)1/3)2 = 1, -1/2 +/- sqrt(3)/3.
And, in keeping with that definition, it seems that, in general, we have am/n = (am)1/n provided m and n are relatively prime.
Does this sound reasonable?
Thanks,
Rich