I'm having some problem wrapping my head around the sophisticated way to format mathematical problems on this forum, so you will have to excuse me for not expressing my question in the correct format! :)
On to my question:
I was recently presented with this equation, and asked whether or not I thought it was correct:
$((x^2)^2)^3 = x^{64}.$
So I answered that I thought it was correct. I was given the answer that the equation is, in fact, not correct, but was not provided an explanation as to why this is. I eventually managed to deduce, through my brilliant insight into the world of mathematics, that it must be because the actual answer is derived through multiplying the exponents with each other, like so:
$((x^2)^2)^3 = x^{12}$
So the correct answer is that I would take 2 times 2 times 3, which equals 12, instead of 2 to the power of 2 to the power of 3, which equals 64.
So I thought I was supposed to take the power of each exponent with the consecutive exponent, so that I would have the first two exponents, i.e. 2 to the power of 2, which equals 4, and then have 4 to the power of 3, which equals 64. This is apparently not correct, however, as I'm supposed to take the first two exponents times each other, as in 2 times 2, and then take the resulting 4 times 3, which equals 12, so that I end up with $((x^2)^2)^3 = x^{12}.$
My question is why this is? I know that an exponent on an exponent, like $(x^2)^2$, is supposed to be multiplied with each other, so that I would take the exponent of 2 times the other exponent of 2, and get the result being the exponent of 4. In the example above, I would then take the exponent of 4 and multiply it with the exponent 3, which would result in x^12. I'm thinking that we're not dealing with "mere" multiplication though, but with "the power of"! Shouldn't we treat the problem as such, then?
Is there a way for you fine people to explain to a dunce like me why it's logically correct to simply multiply the exponents, rather than take the exponents to the power of the consecutive exponent, and then take the result of that with the next consecutive exponent, if we have a total of three exponents?