Can someone explain why the exponents behave like this

  • Thread starter Thread starter treehau5
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explain Exponents
treehau5
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I can't seem to wrap my mind around this. I understand exponent properties, but for some reason when you throw that n in there it rocks my world.

I was solving an induction problem, and a piece of the algebra that I sort of guessed at was this:
(3n-3n-1)

Which after factoring becomes
3n-1(3-1)

I do not understand how the exponential division is working here with the n. Can someone please explain?

I tried testing it out a different way by just writing 3n/3n-1 which equals 3, but this somehow confused me more.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
treehau5 said:
Hello,

I can't seem to wrap my mind around this. I understand exponent properties, but for some reason when you throw that n in there it rocks my world.

I was solving an induction problem, and a piece of the algebra that I sort of guessed at was this:
(3n-3n-1)

Which after factoring becomes
3n-1(3-1)

I do not understand how the exponential division is working here with the n. Can someone please explain?

I tried testing it out a different way by just writing 3n/3n-1 which equals 3, but this somehow confused me more.


If you understand \,xy-x=x(y-1)\,, which is a simple application of the distributivity axiom (in some

field), then putting \,x=3^{n-1}\,\,,\,y=3\, , we get:
3^n-3^{n-1}=3^{n-1}\cdot 3 -3^{n-1}=3^{n-1} (3-1)=2\cdot 3^{n-1}
Tadaaah!

DonAntonio
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top