answersLogoWhite

0

That is the way it is defined; in theory, it could be defined any other way. But the definition commonly used makes several rules maintain their validity, for example, the law about adding exponents - even when the exponent is negative.

Consider this sequence:

103 = 1000

102 = 100

101 = 10

100 = 1

10-1 = 1/10

10-2 = 1/100

Every time the exponent is reduced by one, the result gets reduced by a factor of 10. So, it seems logical to continue this pattern for a zero or negative exponent. Mind you, this is no proof - after all, the negative exponents is a matter of definitions, not of proof. The above only merely shows that the definition is reasonable.

That is the way it is defined; in theory, it could be defined any other way. But the definition commonly used makes several rules maintain their validity, for example, the law about adding exponents - even when the exponent is negative.

Consider this sequence:

103 = 1000

102 = 100

101 = 10

100 = 1

10-1 = 1/10

10-2 = 1/100

Every time the exponent is reduced by one, the result gets reduced by a factor of 10. So, it seems logical to continue this pattern for a zero or negative exponent. Mind you, this is no proof - after all, the negative exponents is a matter of definitions, not of proof. The above only merely shows that the definition is reasonable.

That is the way it is defined; in theory, it could be defined any other way. But the definition commonly used makes several rules maintain their validity, for example, the law about adding exponents - even when the exponent is negative.

Consider this sequence:

103 = 1000

102 = 100

101 = 10

100 = 1

10-1 = 1/10

10-2 = 1/100

Every time the exponent is reduced by one, the result gets reduced by a factor of 10. So, it seems logical to continue this pattern for a zero or negative exponent. Mind you, this is no proof - after all, the negative exponents is a matter of definitions, not of proof. The above only merely shows that the definition is reasonable.

That is the way it is defined; in theory, it could be defined any other way. But the definition commonly used makes several rules maintain their validity, for example, the law about adding exponents - even when the exponent is negative.

Consider this sequence:

103 = 1000

102 = 100

101 = 10

100 = 1

10-1 = 1/10

10-2 = 1/100

Every time the exponent is reduced by one, the result gets reduced by a factor of 10. So, it seems logical to continue this pattern for a zero or negative exponent. Mind you, this is no proof - after all, the negative exponents is a matter of definitions, not of proof. The above only merely shows that the definition is reasonable.

User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago

Still curious? Ask our experts.

Chat with our AI personalities

RafaRafa
There's no fun in playing it safe. Why not try something a little unhinged?
Chat with Rafa
FranFran
I've made my fair share of mistakes, and if I can help you avoid a few, I'd sure like to try.
Chat with Fran
JudyJudy
Simplicity is my specialty.
Chat with Judy
More answers

That is the way it is defined; in theory, it could be defined any other way. But the definition commonly used makes several rules maintain their validity, for example, the law about adding exponents - even when the exponent is negative.

Consider this sequence:

103 = 1000

102 = 100

101 = 10

100 = 1

10-1 = 1/10

10-2 = 1/100

Every time the exponent is reduced by one, the result gets reduced by a factor of 10. So, it seems logical to continue this pattern for a zero or negative exponent. Mind you, this is no proof - after all, the negative exponents is a matter of definitions, not of proof. The above only merely shows that the definition is reasonable.

User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Why is any number raised to a negative power is what it is?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp