Intuition What this page is
The parent note proved the seven laws. Here we stress-test them against every kind of input a problem can hand you: positive/negative exponents, fractions, irrationals, the base being 0 or 1 , a "combine" limit, a word problem, and a nasty exam twist. If you can drive every cell of the matrix below, no exponent question can surprise you.
Definition The domain rule you must never forget
Every law used on this page — a x + y = a x a y , a y a x = a x − y , ( a x ) y = a x y , the zero-exponent rule a 0 = 1 , and a p / q = q a p — is guaranteed to make sense in the real numbers only when the base a > 0 (or the exponent is a plain integer, where "copies" still works). We write a > 0 at the top of every problem in our heads.
In the radical form a p / q = q a p we require p , q to be integers with q a positive integer (q ≥ 1 ). That is what makes the principal-root convention well-posed: q needs a whole-number index to name a single non-negative root.
Two consequences we will see in action below:
Negative base + non-integer exponent = not real. ( − 2 ) 1/2 = − 2 and ( − 1 ) 2 have no real value (Ex 5b). Never apply the laws to them.
Even-indexed radicals take the principal (non-negative) root. 4 81 = 3 , not ± 3 ; q a with q even means the one non-negative number whose q -th power is a . This convention is what keeps a p / q single-valued.
Every exponent expression you will ever meet lands in one of these cells. The right column names the example on this page that lives there.
#
Scenario class
Distinguishing feature
Covered by
A
Positive integer exponents
literal "copies"
Ex 1
B
Negative exponent
means reciprocal, not sign
Ex 2
C
Rational exponent (root + power)
a p / q = q a p , principal root
Ex 2, Ex 3
D
Fraction base with − fractional power
flip and root
Ex 3
E
Irrational exponent
limit-defined, still obeys algebra
Ex 4
F
Degenerate base: a = 1 , a = 0 (incl. 0 0 , 0 − n )
edge behaviour
Ex 5
F−
Forbidden base: a < 0 with non-integer exponent
not real
Ex 5b
G
Combining unlike bases
when the laws cannot merge
Ex 6
H
Real-world growth (word problem)
attach units, interpret
Ex 7
I
Exam twist / equation solving
match exponents
Ex 8
We work them in order. Read the "Forecast:" line and answer it in your head before unfolding the steps.
Worked example Example 1 — Cell A: pure positive integers
Simplify 2 5 ( 2 3 ) 2 ⋅ 2 4 .
Forecast: will the answer be a small power of 2 , or a huge one? Guess the exponent.
( 2 3 ) 2 = 2 3 ⋅ 2 = 2 6 . Why this step? Power-of-a-power multiplies exponents: 2 3 is a block of three 2 's, and squaring it means taking two such blocks, giving 3 × 2 = 6 factors of 2 in all.
Numerator: 2 6 ⋅ 2 4 = 2 6 + 4 = 2 10 . Why this step? Product law adds exponents because we just pile the copies together.
Divide: 2 5 2 10 = 2 10 − 5 = 2 5 . Why this step? Quotient law subtracts — cancelling 5 copies from top against bottom.
2 5 = 32 .
Verify: compute directly ( 8 ) 2 ⋅ 16/32 = 64 ⋅ 16/32 = 1024/32 = 32 . ✓
Answer: 32 .
Worked example Example 2 — Cell B + C: negative and rational together
Simplify 1 6 − 3/4 . (Base 16 > 0 ✓, so the laws apply.)
Forecast: the minus sign is up top. Will the answer be negative, or a fraction? (Trap!)
Negative exponent means reciprocal: 1 6 − 3/4 = 1 6 3/4 1 . Why this step? a − n = 1/ a n is forced by wanting a n a − n = a 0 = 1 . The minus never makes a number negative when a > 0 .
Split the rational power: 1 6 3/4 = ( 1 6 1/4 ) 3 = ( 4 16 ) 3 . Why this step? a p / q = ( q a ) p — take the root first (smaller numbers), then the power. Here 4 16 means the principal (positive) 4th root.
4 16 = 2 (since 2 4 = 16 ; we take + 2 , not − 2 , by the principal-root convention), so 1 6 3/4 = 2 3 = 8 .
Therefore 1 6 − 3/4 = 8 1 .
Verify: ( 8 1 ) − 4/3 should give back 16 : 8 4/3 = ( 3 8 ) 4 = 2 4 = 16 . ✓ And it's positive — the trap is defused.
Answer: 8 1 .
Worked example Example 3 — Cell C + D: fraction base, negative fractional power (geometric)
Simplify ( 16 81 ) − 3/4 . (Base 81/16 > 0 ✓.)
Forecast: two things happen at once — a flip and a root. Which fraction ends up on top?
Negative flips the fraction: ( 16 81 ) − 3/4 = ( 81 16 ) 3/4 . Why this step? a − n = 1/ a n applied to a whole fraction just turns it upside down.
Split top and bottom: = 8 1 3/4 1 6 3/4 . Why this step? ( a / b ) n = a n / b n — the power distributes over division.
1 6 3/4 = ( 4 16 ) 3 = 2 3 = 8 and 8 1 3/4 = ( 4 81 ) 3 = 3 3 = 27 . Note 4 81 = 3 (principal root), not ± 3 — the even-index radical returns the single non-negative value.
Answer = 27 8 .
Look at the figure: the "− 3/4 " is really three separate instructions stacked on a number-line — flip , then 4th-root , then cube .
Verify: raise 27 8 to − 4/3 : ( 27 8 ) − 4/3 = ( 8 27 ) 4/3 = ( 3 8 ) 4 ( 3 27 ) 4 = 2 4 3 4 = 16 81 . ✓
Answer: 27 8 .
Worked example Example 4 — Cell E: irrational exponents cancel
Simplify 5 3 ⋅ 5 2 − 3 ⋅ 5 − 1 . (Base 5 > 0 ✓ — this is exactly why irrational-exponent algebra is legal.)
Forecast: there is a 3 that can't be simplified alone. Can the final answer still be a plain whole number?
Same base 5 , all multiplied → add exponents: 3 + ( 2 − 3 ) + ( − 1 ) . Why this step? The product law survives for irrational exponents because 5 x = r → x , r ∈ Q lim 5 r — the value the rational powers close in on — and limits respect addition (see Limits and Continuity ).
Simplify the exponent: 3 − 3 + 2 − 1 = 1 . The irrational parts cancel .
So the expression = 5 1 = 5 .
Verify (numeric): 5 3 ≈ 16.242 , 5 2 − 3 ≈ 1.539 , 5 − 1 = 0.2 ; product ≈ 16.242 × 1.539 × 0.2 ≈ 5.000 . ✓
Answer: 5 .
Worked example Example 5 — Cell F: degenerate bases
a = 1 , a = 0
Evaluate (a) 1 2 , (b) 1 − 7 , (c) 0 3 , (d) why 0 0 is not defined here , (e) why 0 − 2 is not defined .
Forecast: which of these are "danger" cases that have no single agreed value?
(a) 1 2 = 1 . Why this step? Multiplying any number of copies of 1 (even a limit of them) is always 1 ; 1 x = 1 for every real x .
(b) 1 − 7 = 1 7 1 = 1 1 = 1 . Same reason — reciprocal of 1 is 1 .
(c) 0 3 = 0 ⋅ 0 ⋅ 0 = 0 . For a positive exponent, piling copies of 0 gives 0 . (Our clean laws demanded a > 0 ; here we read 0 n directly by counting, valid only for n > 0 .)
(d) 0 0 : the product law would need 0 0 ⋅ 0 m = 0 0 + m = 0 m for m > 0 , i.e. 0 0 ⋅ 0 = 0 , which any value of 0 0 satisfies — no unique answer. So it is left undefined in this real-exponent setting.
(e) 0 − 2 : by the negative-exponent rule 0 − 2 = 0 2 1 = 0 1 — division by zero , which is undefined. So 0 raised to any negative power is undefined.
Verify: all three defined values plug back: 1 2 = 1 , 1 − 7 = 1 , 0 3 = 0 . ✓
Answer: 1 , 1 , 0 ; and 0 0 , 0 − 2 both undefined.
Worked example Example 5b — Cell F
− : forbidden negative bases (this is why a > 0 )
Explain why ( − 2 ) 1/2 and ( − 1 ) 2 have no real value .
Forecast: the exponents look harmless. What breaks?
( − 2 ) 1/2 = − 2 . Why this step? a 1/2 is defined as "the number whose square is a ." But every real square is ≥ 0 , so no real number squares to − 2 . Not real.
The double-value trap. If we tried to allow negative bases, ( − 8 ) 2/6 could equal 6 ( − 8 ) 2 = 6 64 = + 2 , yet the "cancelled" form ( − 8 ) 1/3 = − 2 . Same exponent, two answers — the laws would contradict each other.
( − 1 ) 2 . Why this step? For an irrational exponent we would need lim ( − 1 ) r over rationals r → 2 , but ( − 1 ) r jumps between + 1 , − 1 and non-real values as r varies — no limit exists in the reals.
Conclusion. The laws on this page are all stated for a > 0 ; on a negative base with a non-integer exponent you must stop and refuse to apply them. (Complex analysis rescues these, but that is a different, multi-valued game.)
Verify: ( − 2 ) 1/2 has no real value because x 2 = − 2 has no real solution; ( − 1 ) 2 has no real value because the required limit of ( − 1 ) r does not exist. ✓
Answer: both are undefined over the real numbers.
Worked example Example 6 — Cell G: unlike bases you must NOT merge
Simplify as far as legally possible: 2 5 ⋅ 3 4 6 5 . (All bases > 0 ✓.)
Forecast: the bases are 6 , 2 , 3 — different! Can the laws touch this at all, or is it stuck?
Rewrite 6 5 = ( 2 ⋅ 3 ) 5 = 2 5 3 5 . Why this step? ( ab ) n = a n b n lets us split a product base — this is the only bridge between 6 and the 2 , 3 downstairs.
Substitute: 2 5 3 4 2 5 3 5 .
Cancel same-base factors: 2 5 2 5 = 1 (quotient law 2 5 − 5 = 2 0 = 1 ) and 3 4 3 5 = 3 5 − 4 = 3 1 . Why this step? Quotient law only fires between equal bases — that's why splitting 6 in step 1 was essential.
Result = 3 .
Mistake watch: you could not write 2 5 6 5 as 3 5 and stop — you'd forget the leftover 3 4 . Always split unlike bases into common ones first.
Verify: 6 5 = 7776 , 2 5 ⋅ 3 4 = 32 ⋅ 81 = 2592 , and 7776/2592 = 3 . ✓
Answer: 3 .
Worked example Example 7 — Cell H: real-world growth (word problem, with units)
A colony of bacteria triples every 2 hours. Starting mass is 50 mg. Write the mass after t hours and find the mass at t = 5 hours.
Forecast: at t = 5 hours (which is 2.5 tripling-periods), is the mass more or less than 50 × 3 2 = 450 mg?
Number of tripling periods in t hours is 2 t , so mass M ( t ) = 50 ⋅ 3 t /2 mg. Why this step? Each period multiplies by 3 ; doing it 2 t times is exactly a real exponent 3 t /2 — legal because the base 3 > 0 (this is why real exponents matter, see Exponential Functions and their Graphs ).
At t = 5 : M ( 5 ) = 50 ⋅ 3 5/2 = 50 ⋅ 3 2 ⋅ 3 1/2 = 50 ⋅ 9 ⋅ 3 . Why this step? Split 3 5/2 = 3 2 ⋅ 3 1/2 (product law) to separate the exact whole part from the root.
= 450 3 ≈ 450 × 1.732 ≈ 779.4 mg.
Look at the growth curve — t = 5 sits between the t = 4 point (450 mg) and t = 6 point (1350 mg), closer to being partway up, exactly as 3 5/2 demands.
Verify (units + number): dimension is (mg)·(pure ratio) = mg ✓. Numerically 50 ⋅ 3 2.5 ≈ 779.42 mg, and indeed 450 < 779.4 < 1350 . ✓
Answer: M ( t ) = 50 ⋅ 3 t /2 mg; M ( 5 ) = 450 3 ≈ 779.4 mg.
Worked example Example 8 — Cell I: exam twist, solve for the exponent
Solve for x : ( 2 ) x ⋅ 4 x = 8 2 . (All bases > 0 ✓.)
Forecast: every term is really a power of 2 . Once rewritten, this becomes a plain linear equation — what will the coefficient of x be?
Rewrite every base as a power of 2 : 2 = 2 1/2 , 4 = 2 2 , 8 2 = 2 3 ⋅ 2 1/2 = 2 7/2 . Why this step? Matching one common base lets us compare exponents directly — the only way an exponential equation becomes solvable by algebra.
Left side: ( 2 1/2 ) x ⋅ ( 2 2 ) x = 2 x /2 ⋅ 2 2 x = 2 x /2 + 2 x = 2 5 x /2 . Why this step? Power-of-a-power then product law: 2 x + 2 x = 2 5 x .
Now 2 5 x /2 = 2 7/2 . Same base, so exponents must match: 2 5 x = 2 7 . Why this step? The function a x is monotonic (strictly one-directional) for a > 0 , a = 1 : if a > 1 it is strictly increasing , if 0 < a < 1 it is strictly decreasing . Either way it never repeats a value, so it is one-to-one — equal powers therefore force equal exponents. Here a = 2 > 1 , strictly increasing.
5 x = 7 ⇒ x = 5 7 .
Verify: put x = 5 7 : exponent 2 5 ⋅ 5 7 = 2 7 , so left = 2 7/2 = 2 3 2 = 8 2 . ✓
Answer: x = 5 7 .
Recall What single condition on the base makes every law on this page legal?
a > 0 (or a plain integer exponent). It keeps a x single-valued, real, continuous, and monotonic.
Recall Why is
( − 2 ) 1/2 or ( − 1 ) 2 forbidden?
Negative base with a non-integer exponent has no real value: − 2 isn't real, and ( − 1 ) r has no limit as r → 2 . The laws simply don't apply — that's the whole reason for demanding a > 0 .
Recall What does
4 81 equal — 3 or ± 3 ?
3 only. Even-indexed radicals return the principal (non-negative) root; this convention keeps a p / q single-valued.
Recall Which cell is the classic "sign trap"?
Cell B: 1 6 − 3/4 = 8 1 is positive . The minus means reciprocal, never a negative value (for a > 0 ).
Recall Why is
0 − 2 undefined?
0 − 2 = 1/ 0 2 = 1/0 — division by zero. 0 to any negative power is undefined.
Recall Why is
0 0 left undefined here?
The product law puts no unique constraint on it (0 0 ⋅ 0 = 0 holds for any value), so no single answer survives.
Recall Strategy for "solve for the exponent" problems?
Rewrite every term as a power of one common base, combine with the laws, then set exponents equal (valid because a x is one-to-one — strictly increasing if a > 1 , strictly decreasing if 0 < a < 1 ).
R ewrite → C ombine → R ead off
R ewrite each base so they match, and turn flips/roots into their meaning; C ombine with add/subtract/multiply exponents; R ead off the answer — or, in an equation, set the matched exponents equal and solve. First reflex before any of this: is the base > 0 ?