The Triangle of Power

The web is full of amazing and surprising creations. One such creation that has caught my attention
lately was a video by 3Blue1Brown on the so-called “Triangle of Power”.

Triangle of Power

Apparently, the ideas originated on a Math Stack Exchange thread asking for more unified notations
for exponents, logarithms and radicals. Indeed, while these formulas 23 = 8, √8 = 2 and log2 8 = 3
3

are all discussing the same relationship that holds between 2, 3 and 8, they look so different that a
student may not witness their commonality.

I see. So, the question is whether there could be a more explicit notations to unify and better
visualize this relationship…

Yes indeed. One alternative notation has gained much interest. It is the so-called Triangle of Power.
In our case, this triangle of power can depict the relationship between 2, 3 and 8 in a wonderfully
3

compact and harmonious way, namely by denoting 2Δ8.

And that triangle 2Δ8 is a formula?

No! It’s more like an identity in itself. To perform computations, it might be useful to move one of
the entries of the triangle to the other side of an equal sign as follows:
3 3 3

2 Δ8 ⟺ 2 Δ = 8 ⟺ Δ8 = 2 ⟺ 2 Δ8 = 3.

3Blue1Brown argues that this beautiful notation greatly simplifies the understanding of the mathe-
matical underlying objects, namely exponents, logarithms and radicals. This claim is quite disturb-
ing at first. Indeed, again and again, I had to translate the equations of his video into equations in
terms of the notations I am more familiar with. I could not think in terms of the triangle of power.

So you think it’s a bad notation…

Actually, no. This just helped realize how dependent on current flawed notations my mathematical
thinking was! That’s not good! Moreover, I did get stunned by some of the many artful equations
that this new notation yielded, e.g.

y y y 1/y iτ/4
xΔz + ⊕ z iτ

xΔ y , x Δ z, y Δz, Δ×, ×Δ×, ×Δ, xΔ = Δ x, y Δ yz , xΔy y Δz = xΔz , e Δ1 , e Δi…

xΔ Δz xΔ xΔ

By the end of the video, I got hooked.

Even though you couldn’t follow the computations…

That’s true. And it would have been hypocritical of me to claim that they were indeed the way to go,
if I had not yet experienced the actual benefaction of using and thinking in terms of this triangle of
power. Following 3Blue1Brown’s advice, it seemed that the only way for me to do so is to go explore
and play with the triangle of power. So I gave myself homeworks.

What homework?

I’ve decided to redefine and rederive well-known results about exponents, logarithms and radicals.
And since I love the web, I couldn’t not share it with you. Enjoy!

Defining the Triangle of Power

Let us start from the bottom. We’ll assume that integers and real numbers have been well-defined,
as well as the addition and the multiplication. In this section, we’ll redefine the triangle of power
y

xΔz for all x, z > 0 and y ∈ R. It won’t be straightforward though. The first step is to define the tri-
angle of power for top integer values of y, then for top rational values, and finally we shall use con-
tinuity to generalize it for real tops.

OK… Let’s start with integer tops.

n 0

Let’s define xΔ for all x > 0 by induction on n. For n = 0, we define xΔ1, and we consider the induc-
n±1

tion x Δ n . We indeed use the “+” sign to define induction over positive integers, and the “-” sign
x±1×xΔ
for induction over negative integers.

Wait… Are you sure you’ve given an actual inductive definition?

Getting used to the meaning of the compact triangle-of-power notation is likely to be troublesome at
0

first. What we really mean in terms of equations is that we define respectively xΔ = 1 and
n±1 n

x Δ =x
±1
× xΔ . More generally, we have
n n n

xΔy ⟺ xΔ = y ⟺ Δy = x ⟺ xΔy = n.

n m+n m n

From this definition, it follows straightforwardly that 1 Δ1 , x Δ = xΔ × xΔ ,

−1
−n n n n

xΔ = 1/xΔ = (xΔ) and that x ↦ xΔ is strictly increasing for n ≥ 1 (and thus injective).

I think I follow…

Take your time. These notations can be very troubling.

Sure. You can move on.

n

Let us now a prove our first beautiful theorem. For x >0 and n, m ∈ Z , we have m Δ mn . I cannot
xΔ xΔ

help to comment on how cool I think that this elegantly structured notation is a theorem! We prove
this by induction on n. The case n = 0 boils down to the definition of the triangle of power for zero
top value. Assuming that the result holds for n, we now have, using the induction definition of the
n+1 m n m mn m(n+1)

triangle of power, m Δ = xΔ × m Δ= xΔ × xΔ = x Δ . This equality can be equivalently

xΔ xΔ

n+1

rewritten as m Δ m(n+1)
, which concludes the induction proof.
xΔ Δ
x

There is elegance in the notation indeed…

n mn

I know! Here’s another beautiful theorem. For all x, y > 0 and m, n ∈ Z , we have xΔy ⟺ xΔ
m .
yΔ

Using the previous result, we see that the right-hand side is equivalent to n Δ m . For the left-to-right
xΔ yΔ

implication we can replace the left of the main triangle by y, yielding yΔ m , which is equivalent to
yΔ

m m m

yΔ = yΔ , which is clearly true. To go from right to left, we notice that z =y is a solution of zΔ m .

yΔ

m n

Yet the map z ↦ zΔ is injective, thus it is the only solution. Thus xΔ = y, which concludes the proof
for positive integers n.

Cool! And I guess that the case for negative integers n is dealt with similarly.

Yes! The theorem we’ve just proved can now be used to define the triangle power for rational tops.
p/q p

For p ∈ Z and q ∈ Z , we define x Δy if xΔ . To prove the consistency of this definition, we need to

∗
q

yΔ
make sure that it holds for any p′ , q′ instead of p, q, whenever p′ /q′ = p/q . To prove this it suffices to
p/q kp/kq p kp

show that x Δy ⟺x Δ y , i.e. xΔ q ⟺ xΔ kq . But this boils down to applying the two previous
yΔ yΔ

p kp kp

theorems. Indeed, xΔ q ⟺ xΔ k ⟺ xΔ kq .
yΔ q Δ yΔ
yΔ

Cool! Top integers, checked. Top rationals, checked. All we have left to define are top reals!

Yes. But to get there, we’ll need to first prove another beautiful theorem:
p/q p p q q q/p

x Δy ⟺ xΔ q ⟺ xΔ = yΔ ⟺ yΔ p ⟺ y Δx . In other words, by fixing r = p/q , we obtain

yΔ xΔ

r 1/r

the reflection theorem. For x, y > 0 and r ∈ Q∗, we have xΔy ⟺ y Δx. This is so pretty! Moreover,
by continuity, in the next section, we’ll see that this holds for nonzero real tops as well.

Are we now ready to define the triangle of power for top reals?

1/n

Almost! We now need to prove that for any x ≥1 , we have x Δ →1 . Notice to start with that
1/n n

x Δ ≥1 . Now we consider ϵ >0 . Then it is easy to see that 1+ϵ Δ →∞ . In particular, there exists N
N n

large enough so that 1+ϵΔ ≥ x. Moreover, for n ≥ N, we have 1+ϵΔ ≥ x. By montonicity of the trian-
n 1/n 1/n

gle power, this means that 1 + ϵ ≥ Δx = x Δ ≥ 1 . This corresponds exactly to saying that x Δ →1 .
−1
1/n 1/n

Using 1/x Δ =( x Δ) and monotonocity, we can generalize this result for all x >0 and rational

top. Namely, for any x >0 and ϵ >0 , there exists some δ >0 such that for any rational
r

r ∈ (1 − δ, 1 + δ) ∩ Q , we have xΔ– 1 ≤ϵ .

In other words, the right side of the triangle of power is sort of continuous with respect to ra-
tional tops.

This is almost what we’ve proved, and exactly where I’m going with that! Let’s show that if a ratio-
rn

nal sequence rn converges, then, for all x >0 , the sequence xΔ converges too. We have
rn+p rn rn rn+p–rn

x Δ– xΔ ≤ xΔ x Δ –1 . Since rn converges, it is upper-bounded by some positive real number

1/n

M . Let ϵ > 0. Combining monotonicity and the fact that x Δ →1 leads to the existence of some δ > 0
δ

such that xΔ– 1 ≤ ϵ/M . Finally, since rn converges, it satisfies the Cauchy property, which means

that there is N such that for n ≥N and p ≥0 , we have |rn+p − rn| ≤ δ . Combining it all yields
rn+p rn rn

x Δ– xΔ ≤ϵ , and proves that xΔ is a Cauchy sequence that thus converges.

So you’re saying that convergent rational tops imply convergent right-hand side… But does the
choice of the convergent rational top sequence matter?
 tops?
x
rn

∣
Great question! In order to assign a well-defined value to
value of lim xΔ is independent of the rational Cauchy sequence used to describe the real number
lim rn. Let’s thus consider sn another rational Cauchy sequence with the same limit as rn, i.e.

sn − rn → 0. We have

xΔ–
rn

xΔ

x
sn

1/qs

Δ
=x Δ

and what 3Blue1Brown called the top “oplus” addition. Assume that
x ⊕ y = (1/x + 1/y)
−1
, we see that

X⊕Y

Δ z = z
1

X⊕Y

Δ =
rn

z
X
1
x

Δ
sn−rn

which concludes the proof. We can finally define xΔ for x > 0 and z ∈ R as the limit of
tional Cauchy sequence rn → z. We did it!

Algebraic Identities

1/qs

Δ
Δ −1

Denote a = p/q and b = r/s, we see that this implies x Δ = xΔ × xΔ. By now applying this equal-

=z Δ ×
x

So this transformation of addition into multiplication holds for rational tops. What about real

1/X
z

dition into multiplication and vice-versa. This is what I mean when I used the symbolic notation Δ×.
We have already proved that this was the case for integer tops (by induction on the definition). To
→ (lim

Perhaps the main property of the triangle of power is its ability to transform, in a certain sense, ad-

generalize it to real tops, it actually suffices to prove it for rational tops, and to then involve a conti-
nuity argument. So let us consider p, q, r, s nonzero integers (especially r ans s). We have the follow-
ing computation:
p

Δ
r
+s

=
ps+qr

Δ
qs

=
ps+qr

Δ =
ps

Δ× 1/qs

ity for rational Cauchy sequences an and bn and taking the limit, we see that this relation holds for
all real numbers a and b.

Now, perhaps a more elegant way to state this theorem is as follows. If xΔY and xΔZ , then x Δ Y ×Z .
Thereby, we really see how the triangle of power transforms top addition into right multiplication.
So beautiful!

Pretty nice indeed!

Combining this with the reflection theorem yields a similar connection between left multiplication
qr

Δ=

a+b

z
1/Y
x

x
lim rn

X
rn

xΔ)|1

ps/qs

a
, we do need to make sure that the

Δ = Δz × Δz = x × y.
− 1| = 0,

Y
qr/qs

b
=

xΔz
xΔ

X
p/q

and
× x Δ.

y Δz
r/s

Y
rn

xΔ for a ra-

y+z

, and denote
+
 X⊕Y ⊕

In other words, we have x×y Δ z , which I earlier symbolically denoted ×Δ.

Cool! What about if we now leave the right side unchanged. Is there a similar relation be-
tween left and top?

There is! Using the commutativity of the multiplications of real numbers, it is quite straightforward
n n n

to show that if xΔX and yΔY for some integer n, then xy ΔXY . We now wish to extend this result to
p/q p/q

rationals n = p/q. To do so, notice that if x ΔX and y ΔY , then we have the more symmetric relations
p q p q p p q q

xΔ = XΔ and yΔ = Y Δ . But then, multiplying the terms respectively yields xΔ × yΔ =X Δ × Y Δ .

p q

Now that the tops are integers, we can see that xy Δ = XY Δ , which corresponds to saying that
p/q

xy Δ XY . Finally, applying the continuity argument proves the result for all real tops, hence ×Δ×.

This is so awesome! I want to see more!

y y

Sure! Let me point out three elegant tautologies. Clearly, we have xΔ = xΔ. This equality can be
rewritten by putting the right-hand side in the missing bit of the left-hand side triangle of power,
y y xΔy

yielding xΔ y . Similarly, we have y Δz and x Δy . In particular, by putting one of the non-triangle

xΔ Δz

entry of the main triangles of power on the right-hand side of an inequality, we obtain descriptions
of inverse operations. These inverse operations are notoriously misleading in education (why would
exp be the inverse of ln?). However, they now become visually pleasing and wonderfully easy to re-

member thanks to the triangle of power!

I can vouch for that!

Earlier, we proved another beautiful identity for integer tops. Note that it can be generalized for
real tops (I’ll leave it as an exercise). This leads to the following theorem. For x > 0, and y, z ∈ R, we
z

have y Δ yz .
xΔ xΔ

We can use this result to prove another splendid identity which we probably should called the
xΔy × y Δz

Chasles relation. Let x, y, z > 0 . Then xΔy × y Δz = xΔz . Indeed, this is equivalent to x Δ z . Us-
y Δz

ing the previous property we derived, this is equivalent to xΔy

Δz . But then, the tautologies we have
x Δ

proved allow us to simplify the left of the main triangle into y, and we are left with another
tautology. Such a beautiful proof!

Calculus
A major use of exponents, logarithms and radicals is differential and integral calculus. In trying to
rederive results about these, I realized the gaps of my mathematical education. Namely, I was
thought that the derivatives of x ↦

They’re not?

namely because the addition of tops is relativity simple. Namely we have

value of

then have
a

with respect to the top:

f(x + h) − f(x)

Definitely much more than the “ln” or “log” or “exp” notations!

(f
What about other derivatives?

Notice that the map

−1 ′
) (y) = (f ∘ f

Yes! Let’s assume

r

xΔ =
e
eΔx
Δ
r

Δ=
′

I guess we can now go back to x ↦

e
r
−1

e Δx

Δ
(y))

r ≠0
y ↦

−1

Chasles relation to generalize this to all left sides, yielding

d
=

e Δy

dy

(the case

dx
xΔ
r
1

=(

Wait… There are other functions we can write and differentiate, like Δx,
xΔ(=
r

Well, for r ∈ N, they probably are. But it turns out that it’s much easier to start with

x+h

(a Δ −
x )

This shows that f is an eigenvector of the derivation operator, and that the associated eigenvalue
depends on the left side a. Now, it can be shown, using for instance power series, that there is a

for which the eigenvalue is 1. That value is Euler’s number e, for which
d

dx eΔ
x

dx
d
x

eΔ

is the inverse of

, we conclude that

a Δy =

xΔ

r =0

dx
…

r
r

dy
were the most fundamental derivatives.

e Δx) e
x

a Δ) =

d
dy

(
aΔ

e Δy = (e Δ )

a Δe e Δy )
x

. Moreover, the following computation yields the more general derivative

aΔ =
d

dx
(

Wow! This notation really points out the importance of e in calculus!

eΔ
a
eΔ
x

Δ) =
dx
d
( e
x e Δa

Δ )=

x ↦
h

a Δ– 1

e Δy

=
e Δa e

y
eΔ
→

−1
x
aΔ

e Δa

Δ
x

⎜⎟
⎛

⎝
lim
h→0
h

a Δ– 1

e Δa a Δ.

. Using the derivative formula

=y

a Δe .

is trivial). The key here is to rewrite this as

. We can compute this using the derivation of composite functions, yielding

r e Δx

Δ =
r

x
xΔ
r

=r x
−1

r−1

Δ.

r
= 1/y

xΔa
⎞

⎠
.
f : x ↦

e Δ–1

. And we can use the

and Δa…
. We
→1
x

aΔ ,
Indeed! These derivatives can be derived from previous formulas and the reflection theorem. We
obtain
1
r 1/r −1 r⊕(−1)
d d 1 r
1
Δx = xΔ = x Δ = Δ x,
dx dx r r

d d −1 d −2 1 2 1
xΔa = ( a Δx) = –( a Δx)(a Δx) = – a Δe ( xΔa ) = − xΔa xΔe ,
dx dx dx x x

x 1/x x
d d 1
Δa = ( a Δ) = – e Δa Δa.
2
dx dx x

Conclusion
In a nutshell, I am definitely convinced! The equations are now so beautiful, so harmonious, and so
enlightening. Frankly, just playing around with these formulas was a great pleasure. These nota-
tions are also so rich that there are plenty of ways to explore them. And this is very exciting!

To conclude, here is an opening remark. Here, I have defined the triangle of power for positive sides
and real tops. However, complex analysis has shown the relevancy of complex tops, especially for
real left sides. Such complex tops can then yield complex right-hand side. However, the reflection
theorem now becomes troublesome, as non-positive left sides are fundamentally troublesome, as I
z

pointed it out in the introduction of my article on complex numbers. Nevertheless, xΔw is now well
defined for x > 0 and complex numbers z, w ∈ C. But note that there may be several z solution to
z

this equation. In fact, the prototypical of example of that regards the most natural equation e Δ1 ,
whose solutions are of the forms z = ikτ , where k ∈ Z and τ = 2π ≈ 6.28 …

iτ

In particular, we have a new notation for the most beautiful identity of mathematics, namely e Δ1 .
Beautiful! Just, so beautiful!

        