Negative Indices

via YouTube Capture

[pavementjuice]

i would like to meet Mr Woo in real life

[oliverhenry]

Wow, you are so passionate about teaching. Thankyou for your service to humanity !

[jamjam]

Thank you! I have a test tomorrow and my teacher is like a text book... so hard to learn! Thanks for making it easy!

[ameliamackie]

im just curious if that boy found this calculator or not

[king_salamander]

you sir, just saved my math grade. night before test and i now know all about negative indices.

[juangordillo]

You can say Mr. Woo is teaching because the students are LEARNING!!!!

[mukundabharadwaj]

Thanks a lot, Eddie sir! You remind me of my teacher at school! Very enthusiastic and energetic and also very kind! Thanks a lot!

[erinkent]

you make it so simple! Thanks so much!

[prasannapatil]

Damn even the small things matter. Instead of writing it as 6/24/14, he wrote it as 24/6/14. Respect.

[JohnnyMcCaffery]

How can this video have any NEGATIVE likes? How can any video that he does have any negative likes? Keep up the good work.

[priyankasachan]

Bro they be experiencing the best maths class 😂

[laurakelly]

i was struggling so much <3 just moved to a new school and this really helped me

[botnigel]

If negative indices are on the denominator, does it go to the numerator?

[princessroomaan]

May god bless u💦💝...I know Negative indices well now

[caitlinmathis]

Thank you so much I'm studying for exams and I didn't understand this at all I completely understand it now thanks to this video !!

[doctorf]

I’m loving this series. You’re terrific!

[petermcgrandle]

Very very odd. Some implicit rules need to be added: eg the indices m and n can also be interchangeable so that m's 'value' can equal n's and/or n can=m or in other words we can have the same 'values' for m and n, apparently nothing stopping us doing that in Maths, or, rather, a^m and a^n don't have to be mutually exclusive for Rule +1 to 'work' - any indices, the same or different will work, obviously. ... ..However, for the sake of providing absolute clarity later we do need to be explicit: ro rule - or Law #1 can be be restated as a^m x a^n = (or can equal) m and n being the same value if so desired. All very superflous and even tautological I know, at this 'stage' of Rule / Law #1 in isolation but quite important later.

OK, so far so good. Right, that then covers us for Rule number 2 and that then leads naturally enough to a^0=1. The rules are not 'transferable' in isolation from each other - ie Rule 3 cannot be deduced from Rule 1 in isolation, as the Laws are shown in your presentation. . Or in other words, a^0 =1 only when applied to Rule 1 (modified or augmented as above by me) + Rule 2 combined, or, to labour the point, a^0=1 only applies to division when m and n are the same value or, if you will, it won't 'work' if the integers of the indices are different. . But of course in your presentation of the rules does not include that stipulation.

I know what I am saying above is very circular from the view point of a Mathematician but not from the view point of a lay person - these things need to be spelled out very specifically. Even when the process is spelled out, it looks like 'zero' is some kind of weird quasi 3 or 6 or anything x0=1??? Huh?

And in the final analysis, in my way of thinking, the above is a 'justification' of at least one of Godel's theorems - that what is a true statement in Maths can't neccesarily be proved. But Maths tries to keep a lid on that by saying because it is 'By Definition' (such as x^0 =1) it does not NEED to be proved. Can it be proved? 'Come on now, you're just being deliberately obscurant and silly!' says the Mathematician in exasperation. If pushed, that Mathematician may finally say Well, no, we can't 'prove it' - we can 'justify' it using our own internal logic and there are a number of ways of doing so and that is the best we can offer Like it or lump it'.

[mossyxmoony]

To think that I'm watching this 10 years after it was posted is mind blowing

[ranguspangus]

I accept your point that x to the power of x approaches 1 in the limit as x approaches 0. However, 0 to the power of zero is undefined as 0 to the power of zero using the law of indices could be re-expressed as 0 to the power of one divided by zero to the power of one and any number divided by zero to the power of one is undefined because zero to the power of 1 is zero.

[Michalastar]

thanks eddie i learned i lot this will help my kid who is in school right now