How do you add exponents??

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Oh my god I don't believe I am asking this>>>

 

Rather how do you add a number and another number that has an exponent?

That sounds more clearer.

 

YES! I am scratchy on this, or just need to make sure...

 

So we have, example here:

 

9.98857^34 + 4.777...

 

4.777 has no exponent. But should I take a log scale and see what the exponent for 4.777 ??

 

Such like this: 4.777^ 0.67915524128

 

here is the link I used for this:

 

Logarithm of 4.777

Base 10

 

 

http://www.1728.org/logrithm.htm

 

 

In all, I think I will always be confused on this, it just does no make any sense whatsoever.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[imatfaal]

You need to learn a bit more about basic mathematical notation - why not have a look at the khan academy.

 

9.98857^34 - this is 9.98857 multiplied by itself 34 times. FYG this is a very very large number

 

9,618,620,607,692,114,917,770,050,817,520,217.38776596

 

Adding 4.777 will alter only the tens and smaller - it is insignificant so why bother? The only possible reason would be numerology which is bunkum.

 

There are many useful and clever mathematical methods for manipulating numbers and their exponents - but your question isnt really one where any would help. You most certainly cannot add x^34 to y^10 without thought and algebra. And adding the log₁₀ of a number to get to a total is not the same as adding the number itself.

 

Please take a trip to the Khan Academy - if you are at all interested in science you need the grounding of basic mathematics.

 

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/arithmetic/exponents-radicals

[Iwonderaboutthings]

You need to learn a bit more about basic mathematical notation - why not have a look at the khan academy.

 

9.98857^34 - this is 9.98857 multiplied by itself 34 times. FYG this is a very very large number

 

9,618,620,607,692,114,917,770,050,817,520,217.38776596

 

Adding 4.777 will alter only the tens and smaller - it is insignificant so why bother? The only possible reason would be numerology which is bunkum.

 

There are many useful and clever mathematical methods for manipulating numbers and their exponents - but your question isnt really one where any would help. You most certainly cannot add x^34 to y^10 without thought and algebra. And adding the log₁₀ of a number to get to a total is not the same as adding the number itself.

 

Please take a trip to the Khan Academy - if you are at all interested in science you need the grounding of basic mathematics.

 

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/arithmetic/exponents-radicals

THIS IS MY NOTE FOR THE SAKE OF ANYONE READING THIS TREAD:

I HAVE FULL RESPECT FOR ALL TYPES AND STYLES OF MATH.

 

 

imatfaal

The only possible reason would be numerology which is bunkum??

 

WOULD YOUR GUESS DEFINE YOU AS HAVING SUPERNATURAL PHYSIC ABILITIES?

 

which is bunkum. "is" your opinion, and none of my concern.

 

My Op is about adding exponents and smaller numbers otherwise I would have placed it in "speculations."

 

 

 

Perhaps I should have stated this another way.

 

 

 

 

if 9.98857^34 is multiplied by itself 34 times, then could this mean that 9.98857 = 1 so that 1*34 = 34?

 

If so could 4.777 just be added to 34 and call it a day?

 

This may be problematic because then 9.98857 and its exponent 34 would seem to be "CHASING" each other around with imaginary units, much like an inverse square law if and only if " someone decided to multiply this by 34 in the 1st place....

 

Although I understand that math is a general concept and or model for visualization, I guess the issues lay on how 1 is either set, defined and or drawn to its limit with dx " as per " how it is " manually set. "

 

So what does 1 have to do with the OP:

 

This:

 

if 9.98857^34 is multiplied by itself 34 times, then could this mean that 9.98857 = 1 so that 1*34 = 34?

 

Don't get me wrong here, there are many ways to figure this out numerology, number theory " complex numbers" just some of them, but I am here to learn the correct science preferred way and ask questions..

Edited October 1, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[CaptainPanic]

imatfaal gave a perfectly normal reply, and you should give the Khan academy a look, if you really want to learn how to add a number to another number which has an exponent. It's just a website which has a lot of exercises for people who want to learn math!

 

Not much of your 2nd post makes much sense to me, sorry.

[EdEarl]

 

if 9.98857^34 is multiplied by itself 34 times, then could this mean that 9.98857 = 1 so that 1*34 = 34?

No.

 

9.98857^34 = 9.98857³⁴

1³⁴ = 1

1³⁴ is not equal to 1*34, it is 1*1*1*1... (34 multiplications). Use a calculator to calculate 1², 1⁵ and 1¹⁰.

 

9.98857 is nearly 10, and 10³⁴ is a huge number 10000000... (34 zeros in all). Adding 4.777 changes the value very little. The same is true for adding 9.98857³⁴ and 4.777.

 

Use a calculator to calculate 9.98857⁵ and 10⁵; their values will be closer to each other than they are to 5.

 

imatfaal gave a good answer to your question.

Edited October 1, 2013 by EdEarl

[Iwonderaboutthings]

imatfaal gave a perfectly normal reply, and you should give the Khan academy a look, if you really want to learn how to add a number to another number which has an exponent. It's just a website which has a lot of exercises for people who want to learn math!

 

Not much of your 2nd post makes much sense to me, sorry.

Sorry I don't think that "PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE STATEMENTS" such as the kind imatfaal is considered " your daily normal reply"

 

 

Can you post your " concerns" on the post that you are confused on please? therefore " We" can keep things neat and organized.

 

 

On another note, Learning Math has many styles and forms not just one " Dogmatic " point of view..

And this is based on facts, not assumptions, dogmas nor speculations..

 

Since this is the case, there is, shall and will always remain doubts in any field of Mathematics..

 

However, thanks for your recommendations, I have seen the link millions of times, but there is " no one" whom has defined the real meaning behind what 1 truly stands for...

No.

 

9.98857^34 = 9.98857³⁴

1³⁴ = 1

1³⁴ is not equal to 1*34, it is 1*1*1*1... (34 multiplications). Use a calculator to calculate 1², 1⁵ and 1¹⁰.

 

9.98857 is nearly 10, and 10³⁴ is a huge number 10000000... (34 zeros in all). Adding 4.777 changes the value very little. The same is true for adding 9.98857³⁴ and 4.777.

 

Use a calculator to calculate 9.98857⁵ and 10⁵; their values will be closer to each other than they are to 5.

 

imatfaal gave a good answer to your question.

imatfaal ' DID NOT GIVE A GOOD Answer" their reply suggest a passive aggressive speculations.

 

Anyway:

 

Your reply WINS #1 IN MY BOOK!

 

Then technically WE LIVE ON THE NOTION THAT EVERYTHING IS 1 THEN RIGHT??

 

1³⁴ = 1

1³⁴ is not equal to 1*34, it is 1*1*1*1... (34 multiplications). Use a calculator to calculate 1², 1⁵ and 1¹⁰.

 

 

Is this in a digital sense " h " "light and illusion" or a scientific physical sense " gravity and matter" ?

Edited October 1, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[EdEarl]

 

Is this in a digital sense " h " "light and illusion" or a scientific physical sense " gravity and matter" ?

I do not understand this question. Is it related to your original post in this thread? Is it an unrelated question about the Planck constant h? Or, is it something else?

 

If it is unrelated to the topic in this thread, then the moderators will probably be happier if you open another thread to ask the question. In any case, please clarify the question.

[Bignose]

On another note, Learning Math has many styles and forms not just one " Dogmatic " point of view..

Be exceptionally careful here.

 

I agree that there are many ways of learning math.

 

But, until you get into some extremely higher level mathematics, just because there are different ways to learn math, doesn't mean that there are equally as many different answers to the math.

 

That is, there aren't many different ways of adding. Addition is addition and only addition.

 

And when you add two numbers together, there is only one correct answer.

 

Then technically WE LIVE ON THE NOTION THAT EVERYTHING IS 1 THEN RIGHT??

Not sure how you support this claim. [math]2 \ne 1[/math]. 1 is just a number. It has been defined to have some nice properties, like any number times 1 will be equal to that same number. But, ultimately just a number, not 'everything'.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Bignose

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Be exceptionally careful here.

 

I agree that there are many ways of learning math.

 

But, until you get into some extremely higher level mathematics, just because there are different ways to learn math, doesn't mean that there are equally as many different answers to the math.

 

That is, there aren't many different ways of adding. Addition is addition and only addition.

 

And when you add two numbers together, there is only one correct answer.

 

 

Not sure how you support this claim. [math]2 \ne 1[/math]. 1 is just a number. It has been defined to have some nice properties, like any number times 1 will be equal to that same number. But, ultimately just a number, not 'everything'.

Maybe I should have stated that h = 1 as c = 1, and how time = 60*60 = 1

 

Its what connects the physical constants to the number 1 that I do not understand and how these get added together.

 

 

SORRY FOR THE BOLD TYPE BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE " OTHERS" KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.

 

 

I 100% agree with you! but isn't 2 a number used as a squared multiple of 1?

The whole issue is how QM and Physical Formulas ' connect ' with each-other leaving debates on what is =1 and how time to be located in another dimension and etc, I mean the list goes on and on, and for every symbol their is an entire book to read!

Seriously! you get lost because their are soooooooooo many interpretations, I don't know how scientist do it really.

 

So yes addition " is " addition..

I do not understand this question. Is it related to your original post in this thread? Is it an unrelated question about the Planck constant h? Or, is it something else?

 

If it is unrelated to the topic in this thread, then the moderators will probably be happier if you open another thread to ask the question. In any case, please clarify the question.

what I mean is that you speak of exponents as 1s, and what I see are indistinguishable particles that represent 1, then I see time being in another dimension " mass-less" that " some how" becomes the denominator in derivatives..

 

Then units IE, meters, au, microns, inches, miles and etc are connected to these 1s added,subtracted, multiplied and etc and etc.

 

How so? because h is also a "digital" and granular form of 1s and 0s.

 

My OP talks about adding a number to an exponent.

 

What if 2x + dx/ dx had an exponents in x, but the other dx had no exponent?

Mind you I did not invent this stuff, its what I hear, read, and study.

 

The h constant represents the quanta, time is the speed of light coupled with 1 sec / meters.

These somehow get mixed with Pi ratio, and G fundamental constants.

 

No one can say these are not related and or not connected to numbers because numbers represent these, otherwise c would not be perceived as 299.792.458 m/s

 

There is something completely wrong with all of this and I am now totally convinced...

 

This does not make sense because it is set up not to. Sadly the excuse is Numerology and or some other type of PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE STATEMENT, that diverges the answer of the question.

 

 

These somehow don't seem like science debates rather excuses these days, ' FROM SOME'

 

I have been told many times by physicist that at times one should accept that they may be wrong about everything they have grasped to understand about the mysterious forces of nature, I don't see how looking at things in a dogmatic sense can unravel billions and billions of years in natural creation and phenomena that is beyond human comprehension..Its pathetic and sickening, especially when " politics " plays the upper role model on what we learn in school and how to apply this to the laws of nature..

 

HOW FUNNY! The ranting is because I will not tolerate PASSIVE BEHAVIOR NOR SPECULATIONS. UNLESS I START A THREAD IN THAT AREA.

 

Universal law of attraction " you get what you give."

Edited October 2, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Unity+]

Maybe I should have stated that h = 1 as c = 1, and how time = 60*60 = 1

 

Its what connects the physical constants to the number 1 that I do not understand and how these get added together.

 

 

SORRY FOR THE BOLD TYPE BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE " OTHERS" KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.

 

 

I 100% agree with you! but isn't 2 a number used as a squared multiple of 1?

The whole issue is how QM and Physical Formulas ' connect ' with each-other leaving debates on what is =1 and how time to be located in another dimension and etc, I mean the list goes on and on, and for every symbol their is an entire book to read!

Seriously! you get lost because their are soooooooooo many interpretations, I don't know how scientist do it really.

 

So yes addition " is " addition..

what I mean is that you speak of exponents as 1s, and what I see are indistinguishable particles that represent 1, then I see time being in another dimension " mass-less" that " some how" becomes the denominator in derivatives..

 

Then units IE, meters, au, microns, inches, miles and etc are connected to these 1s added,subtracted, multiplied and etc and etc.

 

How so? because h is also a "digital" and granular form of 1s and 0s.

 

My OP talks about adding a number to an exponent.

 

What if 2x + dx/ dx had an exponents in x, but the other dx had no exponent?

Mind you I did not invent this stuff, its what I hear, read, and study.

 

The h constant represents the quanta, time is the speed of light coupled with 1 sec / meters.

These somehow get mixed with Pi ratio, and G fundamental constants.

 

No one can say these are not related and or not connected to numbers because numbers represent these, otherwise c would not be perceived as 299.792.458 m/s

 

There is something completely wrong with all of this and I am now totally convinced...

 

This does not make sense because it is set up not to. Sadly the excuse is Numerology and or some other type of PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE STATEMENT, that diverges the answer of the question.

 

 

These somehow don't seem like science debates rather excuses these days, ' FROM SOME'

 

I have been told many times by physicist that at times one should accept that they may be wrong about everything they have grasped to understand about the mysterious forces of nature, I don't see how looking at things in a dogmatic sense can unravel billions and billions of years in natural creation and phenomena that is beyond human comprehension..Its pathetic and sickening, especially when " politics " plays the upper role model on what we learn in school and how to apply this to the laws of nature..

 

HOW FUNNY! The ranting is because I will not tolerate PASSIVE BEHAVIOR NOR SPECULATIONS. UNLESS I START A THREAD IN THAT AREA.

 

Universal law of attraction " you get what you give."

I don't see how constants of physics and quantum mechanics have any relation to mathematics, at least in the context put.

[Bignose]

Maybe I should have stated that h = 1 as c = 1, and how time = 60*60 = 1

But, those values are just 1 in a certain set of units.

 

velocity of light = c = 1 in a set of units based on the speed of light. c also = 299 792.458 kilometers / second = 670 616 629 mph = 1.8026175 × 10^12 furlongs per fortnight. It is just units.

 

Similarly 1 hour = 60*60 seconds. We just defined hours, seconds, minutes, millenia, etc. as conveniences. That's all.

 

The choices sometimes make the math at little easier. There really isn't anything much deeper than that; we defined units of measure that are convenient.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

But, those values are just 1 in a certain set of units.

 

velocity of light = c = 1 in a set of units based on the speed of light. c also = 299 792.458 kilometers / second = 670 616 629 mph = 1.8026175 × 10^12 furlongs per fortnight. It is just units.

 

Similarly 1 hour = 60*60 seconds. We just defined hours, seconds, minutes, millenia, etc. as conveniences. That's all.

 

The choices sometimes make the math at little easier. There really isn't anything much deeper than that; we defined units of measure that are convenient.

Units or wave lengths???

[Bignose]

Units or wave lengths???

I don't know what you are asking here. A wave length is just a length; it is a unit like all the rest.

[studiot]

 

Rather how do you add a number and another number that has an exponent?

 

Surely this question has been answered a dozen times now?

 

Any primary school child should be able to answer this.

 

Just write down the first number in decimal form, including the decimal point.

Write down the secon number underneath, also in decimal form, aligning the respective decimal points.

Starting from the right add digits in each column, carrying over to the left.

 

The result will be a (perhaps very long) number in decimal form.

 

You can, if you like, follow the simple rules to convert it back to exponent form.

 

All other considerations are a distraction from the original question.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

I don't see how constants of physics and quantum mechanics have any relation to mathematics, at least in the context put.

what does context " points" of view have to do with with constants in general?

Is there only one definite absolute way of reason, or did I miss something??

 

Math, numbers and science are all mixed in together. IE discrete amounts of energy, units / time " in a another dimension and etc..

 

 

 

I think you know what I am talking about.

I don't know what you are asking here. A wave length is just a length; it is a unit like all the rest.

LET ME GET ONE THING CLEAR HERE!

 

YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT CHEMISTRY DOES NOT PRIORITIZE UNITS--->???

OR THAT UNITS TO THEM ARE JUST UNITS?????

 

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ACCIDENTS IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE DUE TO MISTAKEN UNITS OF MEASURE!?

 

SORRY FOR THE BOLD TYPE BUT THIS IS SOMETHING NEW...

 

Surely this question has been answered a dozen times now?

 

Any primary school child should be able to answer this.

 

Just write down the first number in decimal form, including the decimal point.

Write down the secon number underneath, also in decimal form, aligning the respective decimal points.

Starting from the right add digits in each column, carrying over to the left.

 

The result will be a (perhaps very long) number in decimal form.

 

You can, if you like, follow the simple rules to convert it back to exponent form.

 

All other considerations are a distraction from the original question

So if a child can answer this " why has this thread been so LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG AND BORING?????

 

Oh what??? You don't like my bold type? thought I would not respond back to you in the same rude context as yourself!?

 

You get what you put in.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[hypervalent_iodine]

So if a child can answer this " why has this thread been so LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG AND BORING?????

 

!

Moderator Note

The question you posed in your OP was answered within the first post. The length of this thread is primarily due to your confusing replies. As a matter of etiquette, the jumbled formatting and overuse of caps and large, bold type is unwarranted and it would be appreciated if it could stop. The people replying to you can read perfectly well without it.

 

Now, it seems to me that your question has been answered and all you seem to be doing is trying to drag in totally unrelated speculation. Kindly stop it. The question was about adding numbers together. If you are truly still troubled by this, then please explain what about it you are finding difficult so that members may further assist you. Otherwise this thread is done.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

!

Moderator Note

The question you posed in your OP was answered within the first post. The length of this thread is primarily due to your confusing replies. As a matter of etiquette, the jumbled formatting and overuse of caps and large, bold type is unwarranted and it would be appreciated if it could stop. The people replying to you can read perfectly well without it.

 

Now, it seems to me that your question has been answered and all you seem to be doing is trying to drag in totally unrelated speculation. Kindly stop it. The question was about adding numbers together. If you are truly still troubled by this, then please explain what about it you are finding difficult so that members may further assist you. Otherwise this thread is done.

why cant someone simply show a numerical example?

 

2+4 = 6

 

7+5=12

 

but there is an exponent in their.

 

If it is that simple then show me,

 

I don't respond to well when people make assumption that I " must be wanting to know this" because I am applying this to numerology in a public forum where this is considered " bunkum ie nonsense" , that was unnecessary and had nothing to do with my OP, not to mention " tactful and occult in itself for other members reading this and affecting my reputation!

 

On another note here:

 

It is rather hard to focus on one member when other members dissect your replies get what " they" want and start a whole new topic that is out of the OP. Have any advice??

 

So, can anyone show me a " numerical" representation?

 

Otherwise yes, this thread will be done, I have read about this for many years, and still it does not make sense because everyone has their own " way" of explain their " beliefs."

I don't see how constants of physics and quantum mechanics have any relation to mathematics, at least in the context put.

so pi ratio is wrong when you use numbers that represent a diameter???

 

3.14 ( 2*earth's radius ) = circumference "is wrong??"

 

can you show a numerical representation that " proves this to be wrong??

Edited October 4, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[hypervalent_iodine]

why cant someone simply show a numerical example?

 

2+4 = 6

 

7+5=12

 

but there is an exponent in their.

 

If it is that simple then show me,

 

I don't respond to well when people make assumption that I " must be wanting to know this" because I am applying this to numerology in a public forum where this is considered " bunkum ie nonsense" , that was unnecessary and had nothing to do with my OP, not to mention " tactful and occult in itself for other members reading this and affecting my reputation!

 

On another note here:

 

It is rather hard to focus on one member when other members dissect your replies get what " they" want and start a whole new topic that is out of the OP. Have any advice??

 

So, can anyone show me a " numerical" representation?

 

Otherwise yes, this thread will be done, I have read about this for many years, and still it does not make sense because everyone has their own " way" of explain their " beliefs."

 

 

Okay, well as an example, 2² + 3 = (2 x 2) + 3 = 4 + 3 = 7

 

As others have stated above, your particular example uses a number that is very large; ~ 10³⁴ = 10000000000000000000000000*. That is a very big number. Adding ~ 4 to that number changes the value so slightly (4.0 x 10^-32 % or 0.000000000000000000000000000000004 %*) , that it would be considered negligible and not worthwhile considering in any practical sense.

 

I hope that has clarified it for you and in future, please avoid responding to mod notes in the thread. If you don't like it, please report it.

 

 

 

*Exact number of 0's may be off as I didn't proof-read it, but you get the idea.

[Bignose]

LET ME GET ONE THING CLEAR HERE!

 

YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT CHEMISTRY DOES NOT PRIORITIZE UNITS--->???

OR THAT UNITS TO THEM ARE JUST UNITS?????

 

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ACCIDENTS IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE DUE TO MISTAKEN UNITS OF MEASURE!?

 

SORRY FOR THE BOLD TYPE BUT THIS IS SOMETHING NEW...

No, you've misinterpreted.

 

You are seemingly ascribing some kind of mysticism or importance on the number 1. You wrote things like "EVERYTHING IS 1 THEN".

 

My point is that any particular value is 1.0 only in the correct units. And that the units themselves are completely and totally arbitrary. That is, mankind has all agreed exactly what a millimeter is. But there is no reason whatsoever that we couldn't have all decided that a millimeter was actually twice as long as it is today (call them bizzaro mm). It has just been defined to be what it is. And, we see this. There is no moral reason that an inch is any better or worse than a millimeter. They are just different.

 

So my point is that there is no reason to ascribe any importance to achieving a number in a calculation of 1 inch. Because its value is only 1 if you use inches. Because 1 inch is also 25.4 mm is also 12.7 bizarro mm is also 0.000126262626 furlongs.

 

The units are supremely important, but because the exact numeral is tied to a unit, that numeral itself changes depending upon the specific convention you are using.

 

It is the fact that we have so many different conventions that lead to problems.

 

why cant someone simply show a numerical example?

 

2+4 = 6

 

7+5=12

 

but there is an exponent in their

There is no general rule for adding terms with exponents.

 

[math]a^x + b^y[/math] is a term that only simplify in special cases.

 

There is nothing like [math]a^x + b^y = (a+b^y)^{\frac{1}{x}}[/math] or [math]a^x + b^y = a^x(c+b^y)[/math] or other simplifications.

 

If you have to perform the calculations, you have to calculate it fully.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

 

Okay, well as an example, 2² + 3 = (2 x 2) + 3 = 4 + 3 = 7

 

As others have stated above, your particular example uses a number that is very large; ~ 10³⁴ = 10000000000000000000000000*. That is a very big number. Adding ~ 4 to that number changes the value so slightly (4.0 x 10^-32 % or 0.000000000000000000000000000000004 %*) , that it would be considered negligible and not worthwhile considering in any practical sense.

 

I hope that has clarified it for you and in future, please avoid responding to mod notes in the thread. If you don't like it, please report it.

 

 

 

*Exact number of 0's may be off as I didn't proof-read it, but you get the idea.

HUH?? Your Mod Note Asked Me A Question....

 

Yes this has made more sense now that I see numbers, thanks.

No, you've misinterpreted.

 

You are seemingly ascribing some kind of mysticism or importance on the number 1. You wrote things like "EVERYTHING IS 1 THEN".

 

My point is that any particular value is 1.0 only in the correct units. And that the units themselves are completely and totally arbitrary. That is, mankind has all agreed exactly what a millimeter is. But there is no reason whatsoever that we couldn't have all decided that a millimeter was actually twice as long as it is today (call them bizzaro mm). It has just been defined to be what it is. And, we see this. There is no moral reason that an inch is any better or worse than a millimeter. They are just different.

 

So my point is that there is no reason to ascribe any importance to achieving a number in a calculation of 1 inch. Because its value is only 1 if you use inches. Because 1 inch is also 25.4 mm is also 12.7 bizarro mm is also 0.000126262626 furlongs.

 

The units are supremely important, but because the exact numeral is tied to a unit, that numeral itself changes depending upon the specific convention you are using.

 

It is the fact that we have so many different conventions that lead to problems.

 

 

There is no general rule for adding terms with exponents.

 

[math]a^x + b^y[/math] is a term that only simplify in special cases.

 

There is nothing like [math]a^x + b^y = (a+b^y)^{\frac{1}{x}}[/math] or [math]a^x + b^y = a^x(c+b^y)[/math] or other simplifications.

 

If you have to perform the calculations, you have to calculate it fully.

This now makes more sense to me.I have seen how field axioms "rules of algebra" are not necessarily applied to imaginary units for x^2 = -1 and at best imaginary units at times have exponents. I think mathematics is far and extremely complex which is why I'd invest more time asking then assuming.

 

Its better to be cautious then make mistaken later in life when you are at the professional level, as I see now I am getting a very poor ratings just by asking question that seem in terms of speculation, or something else for that matter.