How do you simplify irrational exponents?

ISX
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
It is clear that 10^2 can be simplified to 10*10=100. But what about say, 10^0.5? I have been thinking about this for days and can't figure out how it simplifies. 10^1 is 10, 10^0 is 1, so 10^0.5 should be under 1, but it is 3.16, so I don't get it. Same with 10^-1 is 0.1. How exactly are those simplified?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
They aren't. 10^.5 = sqrt(10). Square roots of non-perfect squares are irrational, so you can't write it any other way than as a square root or rational exponent(ie to the power of 1/2).

Any number to a negative power is equal to the number to the power under 1. Ex. 10^-x = 1/10^x
 
ISX said:
It is clear that 10^2 can be simplified to 10*10=100. But what about say, 10^0.5? I have been thinking about this for days and can't figure out how it simplifies. 10^1 is 10, 10^0 is 1, so 10^0.5 should be under 1, but it is 3.16, so I don't get it. Same with 10^-1 is 0.1. How exactly are those simplified?

If 101=10, 100=1, then 100.5 should be somewhere between 100 and 101.

If you use the rule that \left(a^b\right)^c=a^{bc} then you can get a lot of these rules. For example, \left(10^{0.5}\right)^2=10^{0.5\cdot 2}=10^1=10 So that means 10^{0.5} is whatever number that when you multiply it by itself (square it) you get 10. This is the square root of 10.

You can use a similar idea to find out what negative exponents do. Use the fact that a^b\cdot a^c=a^{b+c}.
 
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top