MHB Laws of Exponents: Understand What Your Textbook Is Saying

  • Thread starter Thread starter tmt1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponents Laws
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of the laws of exponents, specifically how the equation $2(2^{n + 1})$ simplifies to $2^{n + 2}$. The relevant law is $a^m \cdot a^n = a^{m + n}$, which allows for the addition of exponents when multiplying like bases. In this case, $2(2^{n + 1})$ can be expressed as $2^1 \cdot 2^{n + 1}$, leading to the conclusion that $2^{1 + n + 1} = 2^{n + 2}$. Understanding this law clarifies the transition in the textbook's explanation. The discussion effectively highlights the importance of grasping exponent rules for accurate mathematical comprehension.
tmt1
Messages
230
Reaction score
0
In my textbook,

it makes the leap from $2(2^{n + 1}) = 2^{n + 2}$ citing the laws of exponents.

I'm not sure which law of exponents it is referring to.

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
tmt said:
In my textbook,

it makes the leap from $2(2^{n + 1}) = 2^{n + 2}$ citing the laws of exponents.

I'm not sure which law of exponents it is referring to.

Thanks

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} a^m \cdot a^n = a^{m + n} \end{align*}$, and here you have $\displaystyle \begin{align*} 2^1 \cdot 2^{n + 1} = 2^{1 + n + 1} = 2^{n + 2} \end{align*}$.
 
Prove It said:
$\displaystyle \begin{align*} a^m \cdot a^n = a^{m + n} \end{align*}$, and here you have $\displaystyle \begin{align*} 2^1 \cdot 2^{n + 1} = 2^{1 + n + 1} = 2^{n + 2} \end{align*}$.

thanks so much :)
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
3
Replies
105
Views
6K
Back
Top