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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical principle that inverts the base of a negative exponent, specifically the identity a-x = 1/ax. Participants clarify that this identity stems from the properties of exponents, particularly ab * ac = ab+c. The conversation also touches on the misunderstanding of percentages and decimal placement, emphasizing that "12.5%" equates to 0.125 and is unrelated to the concept of inversion. The participants conclude that understanding these relationships clarifies the operation of negative exponents.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic exponent rules
  • Familiarity with the concept of reciprocals
  • Knowledge of percentages and decimal conversions
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of exponents in depth
  • Learn about reciprocal functions and their applications
  • Explore the relationship between fractions, decimals, and percentages
  • Practice solving equations involving negative exponents
USEFUL FOR

Students, educators, and anyone interested in enhancing their understanding of exponent rules and mathematical operations involving negative exponents.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
15K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
9K