affiliate

@affiliate@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

affiliate,

this a good explanation.

capitalist apologists love to invent new terms like “corporatism” and “crony capitalism” that basically just mean “every problem with capitalism”. they then say “capitalism isn’t the problem, the problem is crony capitalism” which makes about as much sense as saying “capitalism isn’t the problem, the problem is all of capitalism’s problems”.

affiliate,

i have s few dozen straightened paper clips and then a couple of those hidden away for the particularly stubborn sim trays

affiliate,

god forbid you ever want to run any 32 bit programs. you can’t even play the orange box games anymore

affiliate,

i wonder how he gets all this information. does he have his own recap guy?

affiliate,

i thought they meant 2^0^ + 1, but this makes way more sense

affiliate,

they live in a different dimension

affiliate,

for anyone curious, here’s a “constructive” explanation of why a^0^ = 1. i’ll also include a “constructive” explanation of why rational exponents are defined the way they are.

anyways, the equality a^0^ = 1 is a consequence of the relation

a^m+1^ = a^m^ • a.

to make things a bit simpler, let’s say a=2. then we want to make sense of the formula

2^m+1^ = 2^m^ • 2

this makes a bit more sense when written out in words: it’s saying that if we multiply 2 by itself m+1 times, that’s the same as first multiplying 2 by itself m times, then multiplying that by 2. for example: 2^3^ = 2^2^ • 2, since these are just two different ways of writing 2 • 2 • 2.

setting 2^0^ is then what we have to do for the formula to make sense when m = 0. this is because the formula becomes

2^0+1^ = 2^0^ • 2^1^.

because 2^0+1^ = 2 and 2^1^ = 2, we can divide both sides by 2 and get 1 = 2^0^.

fractional exponents are admittedly more complicated, but here’s a (more handwavey) explanation of them. they’re basically a result of the formula

(a^m^)^n^ = a^m•n^

which is true when m and n are whole numbers. it’s a bit more difficult to give a proper explanation as to why the above formula is true, but maybe an example would be more helpful anyways. if m=2 and n=3, it’s basically saying

(a^2^)^3^ = (aa)^3^ = (aa) • (aa) • (aa) = a^2•3^.

it’s worth noting that the general case (when m and n are any whole numbers) can be treated in the same way, it’s just that the notation becomes clunkier and less transparent.

anyways, we want to define fractional exponents so that the formula

(a^r^)^s^ = a^r^ • a^s^

is true when r and s are fractional numbers. we can start out by defining the “simple” fractional exponents of the form a^1/n^, where n is a whole number. since n/n = 1, we’re then forced to define a^1/n^ so that

a = a^1/n•n^ = (a^1/n^)^n^.

what does this mean? let’s consider n = 2. then we have to define a^1/2^ so that (a^1/2^)^2^ = a. this means that a^1/2^ is the square root of a. similarly, this means that a^1/n^ is the n-th root of a.

how do we use this to define arbitrary fractional exponents? we again do it with the formula in mind! we can then just define

a^m/n^ = (a^1/n^)^m^.

the expression a^1/n^ makes sense because we’ve already defined it, and the expression (a^1/n^)^m^ makes sense because we’ve already defined what it means to take exponents by whole numbers. in words, this means that a^m/n^ is the n-th square root of a, multiplied by itself m times.

i think this kind of explanation can be helpful because they show why exponents are defined in certain ways: we’re really just defining fractional exponents so that they behave the same way as whole number exponents. this makes it easier to remember the definitions, and it also makes it easier to work with them since you can in practice treat them in the “same way” you treat whole number exponents.

affiliate,

it’s but another thing to put ketchup on

affiliate,

couches are but another victim to the interior decorator’s aversion to uncluttered flat surfaces

affiliate,

my couch is barren and made of rock, any comfort must come from within

affiliate,

can someone tell me where in the picture i’m supposed to be looking

affiliate,

i just might be

affiliate,

this is exactly why i like math. i get to play pretend in my own little world

affiliate,

I know how to fix it, but it’s a pain.

this is a perfect description of the microsoft office experience

affiliate,

it may be of some comfort to know that some geometric things are impossible to draw. this can make them tricky to visualize.

not even all “2-dimensional” things can be drawn. a classic example of this is the klein bottle, (a 2-dimensional manifold) which would need 4 dimensions for a “proper representation” in euclidean space.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #