Mixing
Definition of $b^x$ and its properties. (Walter Rudin's “Principles of Mathematical Analysis”)
$begingroup$
I am reading Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis".
There is the following theorem in this book:
p.57
Theorem 3.20(a)
If $p > 0$, then $lim_{ntoinfty} frac{1}{n^p}=0$.
Take $n > (frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}}$. Then $n^p > ((frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}})^p = frac{1}{epsilon}$. So $epsilon > frac{1}{n^p}$. To prove $((frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}})^p = frac{1}{epsilon}$, I think we need the property $(a^x)^y = a^{x y}$. And Rudin didn't write this property on p.22 ex6.
On p.22 Exercise 6, Rudin defined $b^x$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | y > 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
And the reader proves that $b^{x+y} = b^x b^y$ for all $x, y in mathbb{R}$.
But Rudin didn't define $b^x$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | 0 < y leq 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
And Rudin didn't write other properties of $b^x$.
For example, Rudin didn't write $(b^x)^y = b^{xy}$ for all $x, y in mathbb{R}$.
I am disappointed and sad.
Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" isn't perfect.
I can guess $b^x$ is defined as $(frac{1}{b})^{-x}$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | 0 < y leq 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
Isn't Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" self-contained?
Is there a self-contained analysis book in the world?
calculus soft-question book-recommendation
asked Jan 21 at 12:20
tchappy hatchappy ha
766412
$endgroup$
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
I am reading Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis".
There is the following theorem in this book:
p.57
Theorem 3.20(a)
If $p > 0$, then $lim_{ntoinfty} frac{1}{n^p}=0$.
Take $n > (frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}}$. Then $n^p > ((frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}})^p = frac{1}{epsilon}$. So $epsilon > frac{1}{n^p}$. To prove $((frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}})^p = frac{1}{epsilon}$, I think we need the property $(a^x)^y = a^{x y}$. And Rudin didn't write this property on p.22 ex6.
On p.22 Exercise 6, Rudin defined $b^x$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | y > 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
And the reader proves that $b^{x+y} = b^x b^y$ for all $x, y in mathbb{R}$.
But Rudin didn't define $b^x$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | 0 < y leq 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
And Rudin didn't write other properties of $b^x$.
For example, Rudin didn't write $(b^x)^y = b^{xy}$ for all $x, y in mathbb{R}$.
I am disappointed and sad.
Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" isn't perfect.
I can guess $b^x$ is defined as $(frac{1}{b})^{-x}$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | 0 < y leq 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
Isn't Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" self-contained?
Is there a self-contained analysis book in the world?
calculus soft-question book-recommendation
asked Jan 21 at 12:20
tchappy hatchappy ha
766412
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You are making conclusion too hastily. $x^alpha$ for positive $x$ and real $alpha$ is defined on p.181. That said, most reviewers on the internet seem to agree that Rudin is not suitable for self studies (if one learns analysis for the first time) and it should be used as a textbook in a first course on analysis only if the students are guided by a good lecturer.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 21 at 13:09
1
$begingroup$
Even if you want to use $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, there still isn't a circular argument, because the general definition of exponential on p.181 does not depend on the result of the 3.20(a). And strictly speaking, you don't actually need $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, because there are other ways to prove the statement. E.g. just pick a sufficiently large $n$ such that $n>(frac1epsilon)^{1/q}$ for some rational number $0<qle p$ instead. Then $frac1{n^p}lefrac1{n^q}<epsilon$.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 22 at 4:20
1
$begingroup$
A simpler approach is to consider a positive integer $k>1/p$ and then $1/n^p<1/n^{1/k}$ and this is less than $epsilon$ if $n>epsilon^{-k}$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:54
1
$begingroup$
Also the approach by Rudin to define $b^x$ is somewhat complicated. A better approach is to develop logarithms first. Or if you want to avoid logarithm then better use limits instead of sup or inf. Limits obey nice algebraic properties which inf and sup may not. See this post for more details.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:57
1
$begingroup$
@tchappyha: you have caught a minor (but worth noting) issue here! If the function $f$ is continuous and strictly monotone then we can exchange $f$ and limit operation without worrying about the existence of limit. See the theorem mentioned at the end of this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/1073047/72031 I will update this in blog after some time.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 14:19
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
I am reading Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis".
There is the following theorem in this book:
p.57
Theorem 3.20(a)
If $p > 0$, then $lim_{ntoinfty} frac{1}{n^p}=0$.
Take $n > (frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}}$. Then $n^p > ((frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}})^p = frac{1}{epsilon}$. So $epsilon > frac{1}{n^p}$. To prove $((frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}})^p = frac{1}{epsilon}$, I think we need the property $(a^x)^y = a^{x y}$. And Rudin didn't write this property on p.22 ex6.
On p.22 Exercise 6, Rudin defined $b^x$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | y > 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
And the reader proves that $b^{x+y} = b^x b^y$ for all $x, y in mathbb{R}$.
But Rudin didn't define $b^x$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | 0 < y leq 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
And Rudin didn't write other properties of $b^x$.
For example, Rudin didn't write $(b^x)^y = b^{xy}$ for all $x, y in mathbb{R}$.
I am disappointed and sad.
Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" isn't perfect.
I can guess $b^x$ is defined as $(frac{1}{b})^{-x}$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | 0 < y leq 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
Isn't Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" self-contained?
Is there a self-contained analysis book in the world?
calculus soft-question book-recommendation
asked Jan 21 at 12:20
tchappy hatchappy ha
766412
$endgroup$
I am reading Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis".
There is the following theorem in this book:
p.57
Theorem 3.20(a)
If $p > 0$, then $lim_{ntoinfty} frac{1}{n^p}=0$.
Take $n > (frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}}$. Then $n^p > ((frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}})^p = frac{1}{epsilon}$. So $epsilon > frac{1}{n^p}$. To prove $((frac{1}{epsilon})^{frac{1}{p}})^p = frac{1}{epsilon}$, I think we need the property $(a^x)^y = a^{x y}$. And Rudin didn't write this property on p.22 ex6.
On p.22 Exercise 6, Rudin defined $b^x$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | y > 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
And the reader proves that $b^{x+y} = b^x b^y$ for all $x, y in mathbb{R}$.
But Rudin didn't define $b^x$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | 0 < y leq 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
And Rudin didn't write other properties of $b^x$.
For example, Rudin didn't write $(b^x)^y = b^{xy}$ for all $x, y in mathbb{R}$.
I am disappointed and sad.
Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" isn't perfect.
I can guess $b^x$ is defined as $(frac{1}{b})^{-x}$ for $b in {y in mathbb{R} | 0 < y leq 1}, xinmathbb{R}$.
Isn't Walter Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" self-contained?
Is there a self-contained analysis book in the world?
calculus soft-question book-recommendation
calculus soft-question book-recommendation
asked Jan 21 at 12:20
tchappy hatchappy ha
766412
asked Jan 21 at 12:20
tchappy hatchappy ha
766412
edited Jan 22 at 4:15
tchappy ha
asked Jan 21 at 12:20
tchappy hatchappy ha
766412
asked Jan 21 at 12:20
tchappy hatchappy ha
766412
asked Jan 21 at 12:20
tchappy hatchappy ha
766412
766412
1
$begingroup$
You are making conclusion too hastily. $x^alpha$ for positive $x$ and real $alpha$ is defined on p.181. That said, most reviewers on the internet seem to agree that Rudin is not suitable for self studies (if one learns analysis for the first time) and it should be used as a textbook in a first course on analysis only if the students are guided by a good lecturer.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 21 at 13:09
1
$begingroup$
Even if you want to use $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, there still isn't a circular argument, because the general definition of exponential on p.181 does not depend on the result of the 3.20(a). And strictly speaking, you don't actually need $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, because there are other ways to prove the statement. E.g. just pick a sufficiently large $n$ such that $n>(frac1epsilon)^{1/q}$ for some rational number $0<qle p$ instead. Then $frac1{n^p}lefrac1{n^q}<epsilon$.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 22 at 4:20
1
$begingroup$
A simpler approach is to consider a positive integer $k>1/p$ and then $1/n^p<1/n^{1/k}$ and this is less than $epsilon$ if $n>epsilon^{-k}$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:54
1
$begingroup$
Also the approach by Rudin to define $b^x$ is somewhat complicated. A better approach is to develop logarithms first. Or if you want to avoid logarithm then better use limits instead of sup or inf. Limits obey nice algebraic properties which inf and sup may not. See this post for more details.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:57
1
$begingroup$
@tchappyha: you have caught a minor (but worth noting) issue here! If the function $f$ is continuous and strictly monotone then we can exchange $f$ and limit operation without worrying about the existence of limit. See the theorem mentioned at the end of this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/1073047/72031 I will update this in blog after some time.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 14:19
|
show 14 more comments
1
$begingroup$
You are making conclusion too hastily. $x^alpha$ for positive $x$ and real $alpha$ is defined on p.181. That said, most reviewers on the internet seem to agree that Rudin is not suitable for self studies (if one learns analysis for the first time) and it should be used as a textbook in a first course on analysis only if the students are guided by a good lecturer.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 21 at 13:09
1
$begingroup$
Even if you want to use $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, there still isn't a circular argument, because the general definition of exponential on p.181 does not depend on the result of the 3.20(a). And strictly speaking, you don't actually need $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, because there are other ways to prove the statement. E.g. just pick a sufficiently large $n$ such that $n>(frac1epsilon)^{1/q}$ for some rational number $0<qle p$ instead. Then $frac1{n^p}lefrac1{n^q}<epsilon$.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 22 at 4:20
1
$begingroup$
A simpler approach is to consider a positive integer $k>1/p$ and then $1/n^p<1/n^{1/k}$ and this is less than $epsilon$ if $n>epsilon^{-k}$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:54
1
$begingroup$
Also the approach by Rudin to define $b^x$ is somewhat complicated. A better approach is to develop logarithms first. Or if you want to avoid logarithm then better use limits instead of sup or inf. Limits obey nice algebraic properties which inf and sup may not. See this post for more details.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:57
1
$begingroup$
@tchappyha: you have caught a minor (but worth noting) issue here! If the function $f$ is continuous and strictly monotone then we can exchange $f$ and limit operation without worrying about the existence of limit. See the theorem mentioned at the end of this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/1073047/72031 I will update this in blog after some time.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 14:19
1
1
$begingroup$
You are making conclusion too hastily. $x^alpha$ for positive $x$ and real $alpha$ is defined on p.181. That said, most reviewers on the internet seem to agree that Rudin is not suitable for self studies (if one learns analysis for the first time) and it should be used as a textbook in a first course on analysis only if the students are guided by a good lecturer.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 21 at 13:09
$begingroup$
You are making conclusion too hastily. $x^alpha$ for positive $x$ and real $alpha$ is defined on p.181. That said, most reviewers on the internet seem to agree that Rudin is not suitable for self studies (if one learns analysis for the first time) and it should be used as a textbook in a first course on analysis only if the students are guided by a good lecturer.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 21 at 13:09
1
1
$begingroup$
Even if you want to use $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, there still isn't a circular argument, because the general definition of exponential on p.181 does not depend on the result of the 3.20(a). And strictly speaking, you don't actually need $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, because there are other ways to prove the statement. E.g. just pick a sufficiently large $n$ such that $n>(frac1epsilon)^{1/q}$ for some rational number $0<qle p$ instead. Then $frac1{n^p}lefrac1{n^q}<epsilon$.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 22 at 4:20
$begingroup$
Even if you want to use $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, there still isn't a circular argument, because the general definition of exponential on p.181 does not depend on the result of the 3.20(a). And strictly speaking, you don't actually need $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, because there are other ways to prove the statement. E.g. just pick a sufficiently large $n$ such that $n>(frac1epsilon)^{1/q}$ for some rational number $0<qle p$ instead. Then $frac1{n^p}lefrac1{n^q}<epsilon$.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 22 at 4:20
1
1
$begingroup$
A simpler approach is to consider a positive integer $k>1/p$ and then $1/n^p<1/n^{1/k}$ and this is less than $epsilon$ if $n>epsilon^{-k}$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:54
$begingroup$
A simpler approach is to consider a positive integer $k>1/p$ and then $1/n^p<1/n^{1/k}$ and this is less than $epsilon$ if $n>epsilon^{-k}$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:54
1
1
$begingroup$
Also the approach by Rudin to define $b^x$ is somewhat complicated. A better approach is to develop logarithms first. Or if you want to avoid logarithm then better use limits instead of sup or inf. Limits obey nice algebraic properties which inf and sup may not. See this post for more details.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:57
$begingroup$
Also the approach by Rudin to define $b^x$ is somewhat complicated. A better approach is to develop logarithms first. Or if you want to avoid logarithm then better use limits instead of sup or inf. Limits obey nice algebraic properties which inf and sup may not. See this post for more details.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:57
1
1
$begingroup$
@tchappyha: you have caught a minor (but worth noting) issue here! If the function $f$ is continuous and strictly monotone then we can exchange $f$ and limit operation without worrying about the existence of limit. See the theorem mentioned at the end of this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/1073047/72031 I will update this in blog after some time.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 14:19
$begingroup$
@tchappyha: you have caught a minor (but worth noting) issue here! If the function $f$ is continuous and strictly monotone then we can exchange $f$ and limit operation without worrying about the existence of limit. See the theorem mentioned at the end of this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/1073047/72031 I will update this in blog after some time.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 14:19
|
show 14 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You can easily extend the definition of $b^x$ for $0 < b leq 1$ by defining $$b^x := frac{1}{(1/b)^x}$$ and show the property $$b^{x+y} = b^x b^y$$ still holds.
answered Jan 21 at 12:56
A. BailleulA. Bailleul
1687
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Is $(b^x)^y = b^{xy}$ easy?
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 21 at 13:03
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3081813%2fdefinition-of-bx-and-its-properties-walter-rudins-principles-of-mathemati%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You can easily extend the definition of $b^x$ for $0 < b leq 1$ by defining $$b^x := frac{1}{(1/b)^x}$$ and show the property $$b^{x+y} = b^x b^y$$ still holds.
answered Jan 21 at 12:56
A. BailleulA. Bailleul
1687
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Is $(b^x)^y = b^{xy}$ easy?
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 21 at 13:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can easily extend the definition of $b^x$ for $0 < b leq 1$ by defining $$b^x := frac{1}{(1/b)^x}$$ and show the property $$b^{x+y} = b^x b^y$$ still holds.
answered Jan 21 at 12:56
A. BailleulA. Bailleul
1687
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Is $(b^x)^y = b^{xy}$ easy?
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 21 at 13:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can easily extend the definition of $b^x$ for $0 < b leq 1$ by defining $$b^x := frac{1}{(1/b)^x}$$ and show the property $$b^{x+y} = b^x b^y$$ still holds.
answered Jan 21 at 12:56
A. BailleulA. Bailleul
1687
$endgroup$
You can easily extend the definition of $b^x$ for $0 < b leq 1$ by defining $$b^x := frac{1}{(1/b)^x}$$ and show the property $$b^{x+y} = b^x b^y$$ still holds.
answered Jan 21 at 12:56
A. BailleulA. Bailleul
1687
answered Jan 21 at 12:56
A. BailleulA. Bailleul
1687
answered Jan 21 at 12:56
A. BailleulA. Bailleul
1687
answered Jan 21 at 12:56
A. BailleulA. Bailleul
1687
1687
$begingroup$
Is $(b^x)^y = b^{xy}$ easy?
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 21 at 13:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is $(b^x)^y = b^{xy}$ easy?
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 21 at 13:03
$begingroup$
Is $(b^x)^y = b^{xy}$ easy?
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 21 at 13:03
$begingroup$
Is $(b^x)^y = b^{xy}$ easy?
$endgroup$
– tchappy ha
Jan 21 at 13:03
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3081813%2fdefinition-of-bx-and-its-properties-walter-rudins-principles-of-mathemati%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
You are making conclusion too hastily. $x^alpha$ for positive $x$ and real $alpha$ is defined on p.181. That said, most reviewers on the internet seem to agree that Rudin is not suitable for self studies (if one learns analysis for the first time) and it should be used as a textbook in a first course on analysis only if the students are guided by a good lecturer.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 21 at 13:09
1
$begingroup$
Even if you want to use $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, there still isn't a circular argument, because the general definition of exponential on p.181 does not depend on the result of the 3.20(a). And strictly speaking, you don't actually need $(a^x)^y=a^{xy}$, because there are other ways to prove the statement. E.g. just pick a sufficiently large $n$ such that $n>(frac1epsilon)^{1/q}$ for some rational number $0<qle p$ instead. Then $frac1{n^p}lefrac1{n^q}<epsilon$.
$endgroup$
– user1551
Jan 22 at 4:20
1
$begingroup$
A simpler approach is to consider a positive integer $k>1/p$ and then $1/n^p<1/n^{1/k}$ and this is less than $epsilon$ if $n>epsilon^{-k}$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:54
1
$begingroup$
Also the approach by Rudin to define $b^x$ is somewhat complicated. A better approach is to develop logarithms first. Or if you want to avoid logarithm then better use limits instead of sup or inf. Limits obey nice algebraic properties which inf and sup may not. See this post for more details.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 8:57
1
$begingroup$
@tchappyha: you have caught a minor (but worth noting) issue here! If the function $f$ is continuous and strictly monotone then we can exchange $f$ and limit operation without worrying about the existence of limit. See the theorem mentioned at the end of this answer: math.stackexchange.com/a/1073047/72031 I will update this in blog after some time.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 22 at 14:19