How Do You Convert \( \frac{1}{x^n} \) to \( x^{-n} \) in Algebra?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BkBkBk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Laws
AI Thread Summary
To convert \( \frac{1}{x^n} \) to \( x^{-n} \), one can apply the basic power rules of exponents. The expression \( \frac{1}{x^n} \) is equivalent to \( x^{-n} \) because it represents the multiplicative inverse of \( x^n \). This is derived from the property that \( x^n \cdot x^{-n} = 1 \), indicating that \( x^{-n} \) is the same as \( \frac{1}{x^n} \). The discussion also highlights the importance of understanding exponent rules, such as adding exponents when multiplying like bases. Overall, these exponent rules provide a foundational understanding for differentiating functions like \( f(x) = \frac{1}{x^3} \).
BkBkBk
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
ok so I am working through a problem,got part way through and realized i couldn't remeber what to do with power rules,if someone could quickly remind me of the rules!

the question is differentiate

ƒ(x) = 1/x^3

Using

if ƒ(x) = x^n then ƒ'(x) = nx^n-1

and the book answer given is
ƒ(x) = 1/x^3 = x^-3

so the derivative is ƒ'(x) = -3x^-4

now i can understand all but one part of this

the part which is how to get from

1/x³ to x^-³

or why

1/xⁿ becomes x-ⁿ

i remember is one of the basic power laws,just cannot remember how or why its so.
could someone remind me please!
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Part a. x^n * 1/x^n = 1.
To see this, notice that the left hand member is the same as
x^n/x^n, and any nonzero number divided by itself is equal to one.
Part b. x^n * x^-n = 1.
To see this, use the rule of exponents that says "when multiplying like bases, add the exponents". So you will have x^(n + -n), which is equal to x^(n - n) = x^0 = 1.
Now look at what changed from part a to part b. I replaced the "1/x^n" in part a with "x^-n" in part b, and the result was unchanged, so the two expressions are equal.

A more formal approach (using inverse operations, etc) will probably be posted if that's what you're looking for.
 
The notations are equivalent:

b^{-p}\equiv\frac{1}{b^p}

The left hand side and the right hand side of this equation are two different ways of writing the same thing.
 
For the field of real numbers with addition and multiplication as usually defined:

b^{p+q}=b^pb^q

b^{pq}=(b^p)^q

b^{-1}=\frac{1}{b}=\frac{1}{b^1}

b^{p+(-q)}=b^{p-q}=\frac{b^p}{b^q}=b^p(b^q)^{-1}=b^pb^{-q}

b^{p/q}=\sqrt[q]{b^p}

where -x means the inverse of x with respect to the operation of addition (the additive inverse of x), so that x-x means x+(-x) = 0, and 1/x = x-1 means the inverse of x with respect to the operation of multiplication (the multiplicative inverse of x), so that x/x = xx-1 = 1. These rules are general except that 0-1 (and hence any negative power of 0) is not defined.

If p and q are whole numbers, bp can be interpreted as multiply p b's together, and bp-q multiply p b's together with q instances of the multiplicative inverse of b, with the convention that b0 = 1. The rest of the real numbered powers "fill in the gaps" between rational powers (fractional powers). I don't yet know how that filling in of the gaps is formally defined, but I'm sure there are lots of people here who do!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top