logical math followup

This post is a reply to a previous thread that has become to old to
respond to. Due to lack of capability to access the internet, I was
unable to reply when the thread was current. This post is also a reply
to both posts that were made after I was unable to reply.

Start reply:

I will try to explain this in a way that even those that were
brainwashed into believing in magic can understand. The exponentiation
factor represents the number of times that a number is multiplied or
divided by itself. Multiplication represented by a number and often
referred to as raised to whatever power that coincides with said
number. Division represented by a number preceded by a minus sign and
often referred to as lowered to the power that coincides with said
number. Which in turn means that when the exponentiation factor is
represented by the number one then the number being raised to the
first power is multiplied by itself once. Hence 2 (raised to) the
first power is = 2 multiplied by itself once = 4, 6 (raised to) the
first power = 6 multiplied by itself once = 36, 10 (raised to) the
first power = 10 multiplied by itself once = 100. In turn this also
means that when the exponentiation factor is represented by a 1
preceded with a minus sign (-1) that the number is divided by itself
once. Hence 2 (lowered to) the first power (-1) = 2 divided by itself
once = 1, 7 (lowered to) the first power (-1) = 7 divided by itself
once = 1, etc. All numbers when divided by themselves once are equal
to one. This is how real math works.

Your equation is false as applied to exponentiation. Reciprocation
applies to standard multiplication and division yes. It does not
however apply to exponentiation. Meaning that yes, if you multiply a
number by 10 the result will be ten times the original number and
reciprocally if you divide a number by 10 the result will be one-tenth
the original number. That also applies to numbers other than 10.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. Pseudoscience is as
bad as religion. James M. Vierling Jr.