Why does inverting the base of a negative exponent cancel the negative?

AI Thread Summary
Inverting the base of a negative exponent results in a positive exponent due to the identity a^(-x) = 1/(a^x). This relationship can be understood through the properties of exponents, where multiplying bases with exponents leads to the addition of their powers. The discussion also clarifies the concept of percentages, explaining that "12.5%" equates to 0.125, which is simply a division by 100 and not related to exponent inversion. The user expresses a newfound understanding of how these mathematical operations connect, particularly regarding the reciprocal relationships of decimals. Overall, the thread emphasizes the fundamental principles behind negative exponents and their inversions.
bcheck
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
So I understand the math, that is, how to solve these problems. But how does inverting the base cancel out the negative in the exponent? I worked out inversion to simply be a setback of 2 decimal places, e.g. 12.5% of 8 = 1, so 1/8 is .125 % of 1. But why does this nullify the negative?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey bcheck and welcome to the forums.

I think you are talking about why a-x = \frac{1}{a^x}.

The best way to understand this is through the following identities:

ab*ac = ab+c. Now consider b = -c and consider
\frac{a^c}{a^b} = 1
 
bcheck said:
I worked out inversion to simply be a setback of 2 decimal places, e.g. 12.5% of 8 = 1, so 1/8 is .125 % of 1.

Hopefully this is a typo and you meant to write "1/8 is .125 of 1". I think you are mixing up two different concepts here though:

The "setback of 2 decimal places" is what "%" means. "per cent" literally means "for each hundred".

"12.5%" just means ".125" , dividing 12.5 by 100. As you know, dividing a number by 100 sets the decimal point back 2 places. It's nothing to do with "inversion".

Returning to your original example, if we write it without involving per cents, here are some different ways of saying the same thing (Bearing in mind that "of" just means multiplication):

1 / 8 = .125
1 / 8 = .125 * 1
1 / 8 = .125 of 1
.125 * 8 = 1
.125 of 8 = 1

No mystery?
 
chiro said:
Hey bcheck and welcome to the forums.

I think you are talking about why a-x = \frac{1}{a^x}.

The best way to understand this is through the following identities:

ab*ac = ab+c. Now consider b = -c and consider
\frac{a^c}{a^b} = 1
Thanks man.
 
Old Wolf said:
Hopefully this is a typo and you meant to write "1/8 is .125 of 1". I think you are mixing up two different concepts here though:

The "setback of 2 decimal places" is what "%" means. "per cent" literally means "for each hundred".

"12.5%" just means ".125" , dividing 12.5 by 100. As you know, dividing a number by 100 sets the decimal point back 2 places. It's nothing to do with "inversion".

Returning to your original example, if we write it without involving per cents, here are some different ways of saying the same thing (Bearing in mind that "of" just means multiplication):

1 / 8 = .125
1 / 8 = .125 * 1
1 / 8 = .125 of 1
.125 * 8 = 1
.125 of 8 = 1

No mystery?

Yeah the percent thing was just something I discovered for myself while doing this. I never thought of what "per cent" literally meant, and it what was really cool for me when I found that the reciprocal of every whole number as a decimal had a relationship that got me back to .01 every time (I could have definitely worded that better, but hopefully you got it). And yes, I did mean "1/8 is .125 of 1", but you got the gist of it. Anyway, I was really just wondering why this operation works in mathematics, but I more or less get it now with chiro's equation, along with the last post of this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=254455 Thanks to both of you.
 
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...
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...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
9K
Replies
10
Views
2K
3
Replies
105
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
15K
Back
Top