Dialogue de sourds about mathematics: Are exponents substractions in disguise?

[ThirdWizard]

An exponent is a shorthand. It is designed to make things easier to visualize. It *is* multiplication.

Multiplication is shorthand. It is designed to make things easier to visualize. It *is* additon.

 

[Rystil Arden]

No, I didn't.

Don't tell me what I did or did not do.

I calculated A * B first. Then, and only then, did I consider the effects of that calculation upon X.

Note that this still works even if X is 1.

An exponent is a shorthand. It is designed to make things easier to visualize. It *is* multiplication.

If you calculated A*B first, then you gained the conglomerate value AB and lost the value B, since it was already multiplied into AB. The only criterion for being the same step in Order of Operations is that you must be able to sweep across from left to right ignoring distinctions between the operators and get the same answer as you would from any other ordering of the equivalent operators.

If you did A*B first, then you no longer have access to B anymore, unless you actually didn't really do A*B first, but instead looked forward and realised that you needed to save B for later because of an exponent.

Also, if your argument was correct (and despite your math being correct, your premise is not), then addition and subtraction would also be the same step as everything else because multiplication is just a series of additions. So now you have no order of operations anymore (except that parentheses come first).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Multiplication is shorthand. It is designed to make things easier to visualize. It *is* additon.

Except, of course, for all those nasty little fractions - which require multiplication in order to determine what to add.

X + X = 2X, of course.

Starting with X, can you get to 1/2 X by addition without using multiplication?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Except, of course, for all those nasty little fractions - which require multiplication in order to determine what to add.

X + X = 2X, of course.

Starting with X, can you get to 1/2 X by addition without using multiplication?

Sure, by using an exponent that throws a monkeywrench in your recursive system anyway. X^-1. I you try doing AB^-1 with your recursion, you get an infinite loop.

Oh, as for the edit that appeared in one of your earlier posts, I never said you have to calculate the exponent before you multiply, I said you have to account for it before you multiply.

Also, I guess from arguing against addition that you aren't arguing against us on multiplication/exponents any more?

 

[ThirdWizard]

X^(1/2)

 

[Feyd Rautha]

What a bunch of ******!

The Empower Spell feat description uses Magic Missile as an example!

Geoff.

Not in the SRD and for some that is the only resource they use.

Not to mention that I doubt any of us would be able to say to the other with a straight face that Wizards catches all of the mistakes which make it into their books!

 

[Rystil Arden]

X^(1/2)

Actually, that is the square root But it does offer another good example of where Patryn's method fails.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Actually, that is the square root But it does offer another good example of where Patryn's method fails.

And X^(-1) is technically division.

EDIT: As by the way (1/2)X is.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sure, by using an exponent that throws a monkeywrench in your recursive system anyway. X^-1. I you try doing AB^-1 with your recursion, you get an infinite loop.

Really? X^-1 = 1/2 X? I don't think it does, but then maybe my math is off ...

Do you?

AB^-1 = A / B, eh?

Therefore,

AB^-1 = AB * B^-2 = AB / B^2 = A / B

Where's the recursion, I ask? I certainly never advocated recursion. I merely said that it is not required that the exponent be calculated first, and that, rather, it may be done during the same step as multiplication.

 

[Goblyn]

Do you?

AB^-1 = A / B, eh?

Therefore,

AB^-1 = AB * B^-2 = AB / B^2 = A / B

Where's the recursion, I ask? I certainly never advocated recursion. I merely said that it is not required that the exponent be calculated first.

To all arguing: I'm sorry I brought it up. Please forgive me. It looks like once again I've unintentionally hijacked a thread.

See my sig.