Sometimes I see Euler's number defined the following way:
$$e = \lim_{n \rightarrow + \infty} \biggr ( 1 + \frac 1n \biggr)^n \tag1$$
And sometimes I see the exponential function defined the following way:
$$\exp(x) = e^x = \lim_{n \rightarrow + \infty} \biggr ( 1 + \frac xn \biggr)^n \tag2$$
If we define $e$ as $(1)$, then $e^x$ becomes the following:
$$e^x = \biggr(\lim_{n \rightarrow + \infty} \biggr ( 1 + \frac 1n \biggr)^n\biggr)^x \tag 3$$
And if we define $e^x$ as $(2)$, then it remains to show that such an equation, for all $x$'s, yields a single value for $e$.
I say that because one cannot simply say $(1)$ follows from $(2)$ by definition, because I do not know whether the value for $e$ of which satisfies $(2)$ for a specific $x$ will be the same value for all $x$'s. Given $(1)$ is just the special case where $x=1$, I am not able to derive it from $(2)$ by definition, because I do not know whether the $e$-value that satisfies $(1)$ is the same $e$-value that satisfies $(2)$ for any given $x$-value.