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.
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
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
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