Same trick will work next year too!
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
978 points (96.3% liked)
Memes
45555 readers
645 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Brilliant, now I wonder what ages this works for, I figured only 1 and 2, but then I realised we could write the father's age in other bases..
1 = 2^0 (20 b10)
2 = 2^1 (21 b10)
3 = 3^1 (31 b7 = 22)
6 = 6^1 (61 b4 = 25) if they are lucky the grand father will be 61 that year :-D
8 = 2^3 (23 b12 =27)
9 = 9^1 (91 b3 = 28)
14 = 14^1 (141 b4 = 33)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Having kids at 19
Bruh
Don't worry it works for all factors of ten. Like 1^0^ = 1
Took me too long to realize the 0 can be an exponent.
Ah yes. How fitting for a young new person in the world. A reminder that 2°C of warming above the pre-industrial mean would be catastrophic, but also is a good lower-limit of what to expect based on current intentions.
Theres no way that a dude that got a girl pregnant at 18 would understand this.
I know plenty of smart people pretending to be Winnie the Pooh while elbow deep in honey pots. Just because you weren't fucking doesn't mean other nerds weren't lol.
load more comments
(1 replies)
He probably didn't. Her dad (the grandpa) made the balloons.
What?! Impossible to start a family at 18 and also enjoy mathematics?
Not everyone who has unprotected sex at 18 (or with an 18 yr old) is some numbskull just going at it for unscrupulous pleasure.
(As another reply also pointed out: the pun was crafted by the OP's dad, not the 1yr-old's dad; and OP could be the child's mum or dad)
My kids are √-1
Imaginary kids are better
They'll get complexes
Kind of hard to define but refer to themselves as I?
Sounds pretty complex
load more comments
(1 replies)
Damn, that took me waaay too long to get...
Not my brightest moment... 😅
But when you finally get it
I know I'm bad at math but I don't understand how 2x0=0 but 2^0=1
How are they different answers when they're both essentially multiplying 2 by zero?
Someone with a bigger brain please explain this
Edit: I greatly appreciate all the explanations but all they've done is solidify the fact that I'll never be good at math 😭
subtracting one from Exponent means halving (when the base is two):
2⁴ = 16 2³ = 8 2² = 4 2¹ = 2 2⁰ = 1
It's a simple continuation of the pattern and required for mathemarical rules to work.
load more comments
(2 replies)
0 is the neutral element for addition. This is why when we have a number then 0 + number = number (0 doesnt change the value in addition) and why 0 x number = 0 (if you add a number 0 times you will have 0). (Multiplication is adding one of the numbers to itself the number of times designated by the second number)
The same way 1 is the neutral element for multiplication. This is why when you have some number then 1 * number = number. This is also why number^0 = 1 (if you never multiply by a number you are left with the neutral element. It would be weird if powering by 0 left you with 0 for example because of how negative powers work)
This is the level 1 answer.
The level 0 answer is that it is this way because all of mathematics is a construct designed to ease problem solving and all people collectively agreed that doing it this way is way more useful (because it is)
Choose which one you want
load more comments
(1 replies)
This isn't strictly speaking a proof, but it did help me to accept it as it demonstrates the function that makes it 1.
2^3 = 2x2x2
2^2 = 2x2
(2^3)/(2^2) = (2x2x2)/(2x2) = 2
= 2^(3-2)
In general terms:
(x^a)/(x^b) = x^(a-b)
If a and b are the same number this is x^0 and obviously (x^a)/(x^a) is one because anything divided by itself is 1.
Hope that helps
Yes, of course, obviously...JFC, what??
2^(a-b) = (2^a)/(2^b)
You can see this in the example above but perhaps it's better to use different powers to make things a bit clearer.
2^5=2x2x2x2x2
2^3=2x2x2
(2^5)/(2^3)=(2x2x2x2x2)/(2x2x2)
You can cancel 3 of the 2s from the top and bottom of the fraction to be left with 2x2, or 2^2.
I.e. (2^5)/(2^3)=2^2
The quicker way to calculate this is doing 2^(5-3) which when you resolve the bracket is obviously just 2^2 or 2x2.
If both numbers in the bracket are the same the bracket will always resolve to 0, which is the same as saying a number divided by itself, any number divided by itself is one so it follows that any number to the power 0 is also 1 (because it's essentially exactly the same calculation).
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Easiest explanation I can think of using the division law for exponents: 
Since we can use any number for the initial fraction, as long as the denominator is the same as the numerator, any number to the zeroth power is equal to 1. In general terms, then, for any number, x:
I see other people have posted good explanations, but I think the simplest explanation has to do with how you break down numbers. Lets take a number, say, 124. We can rewrite it as 100 + 20 + 4 and we can rewrite that as 1 * 10^2 + 2 * 10^1 + 4 * 10^0 and I think you can see why anything raised to the 0th power has to equal 1. Numbers and math wouldn't work if it didn't.
You can think of 1 as the "empty product" (or the "neutral element of multiplication" if you want to be fancy). 2^x means you have x factors of 2. If you have 0 factors, you have the "empty product"
I like to think of it this way:
2^3 is the same as 2 x 2 x 2.
But you can arbitrarily multiply by as many 1s as you want because 1 has the identity property for multiplication.
So we can also write 2^3 as 2 x 2 x 2 x 1 x 1.
2^2 as 2 x 2 x 1 x 1.
2^1 as 2 x 1 x 1.
2^0 as 1 x 1 or just 1.
Multiplying a number by another number is the same as adding a number to itself that many times. And 0 is has the identity property for addition, so similarly:
2 x 3 = 2 + 2 + 2 + 0 + 0
2 x 2 = 2 + 2 + 0 + 0
2 x 1 = 2 + 0 + 0
2 x 0 = 0 + 0
Its not the same. And theres proof, why.
In addition to the explanation others have mentioned, here it is in graph form. See the where the graph of 2^x intersects the y axis (when x=0):
https://people.richland.edu/james/lecture/m116/logs/exponential.html
This also has some additional verbal explanations:
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2626
The simplest way I think of it is by the properties of exponentials:
2^3 / 2^2 = (2 * 2 * 2) / (2 * 2) = 2 = 2^(3-2)
Dividing two exponentials with the same base (in this case 2) is the same as that same base (2) to the power of the difference between the exponent in the numerator minus the exponent in the denominator (3 and 2 in this case).
Now lets make both exponents the same:
2^3 / 2^3 = 8/8 = 1
2^3 / 2^3 = 2^(3-3) = 2^0 = 1
load more comments
(6 replies)
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^ = (a • a)^3^ = (a • a) • (a • a) • (a • a) = 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.
Ok, lemme say the line... NEEEEERRRRDD
(btw what's that math syntax, that doesn't look like latex equation mode)
load more comments
(1 replies)
That happened
Good luck trying that in two years.
That's not a meme.
It's not less of a meme than most of the other posts in this community.
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›