They did the same on tg . When they talked about car show where Regera was first seen . They talked about all kinds of cars on the show but didn ' t even mention it <| sep |> If they were preparing us for an underpowered console , they would not have shown Skyrim in the trailer . The Wii U can ' t handle Skyrim , the Xbox One can . Therefore , I already know the Switch can handle modern games . Companies like Bethesda , Nvidia , and Ubisoft have said it ' s powerful enough to port PS 4 games to it , so that backs up my assumption . <| sep |> You wanna buy the set ? <| sep |> Your much better off with the 1080 . I bought the 1070 and got lots of juddering from many Vive games . With the 1080 all are rock solid . <| sep |> It ' s not explained well using the same language . We initially define exponentiation to be An , where A is a nonzero real number and n is a positive integer , to be AA . A , where we are multiplying n of the As together . Clearly this definition does not work for any exponents except for positive integers . If we want to talk about other kinds of exponents then we need new definitions . With just the repeated multiplication definition of exponentiation , there ' s no way to talk about A 1 , so we ' re free to say that A 1 is whatever we want it to be . You could say that A 1 picosA if you wanted , there is initially no definition so you can do whatever you like , but there are smarter ways to define negative exponentiation . For instance , with just the repeated multiplication definition of exponentiation you can show that if n and m are any positive integers , then AnmAnAm . This is the additive rule and is a very important property , it ' s really what makes exponentiation important in the first place , so with any definition of exponentiation to exponents that are not positive integers , we want to preserve this property . Note that n 0 is not a positive integer , so the repeated multiplication definition doesn ' t say anything about it , but if we impose that we want the value of A 0 to preserve the property AnmAnAm , even when n 0 , then we get that A 01 A 0 A 1 , and if we simplify , this means that AA 0 A . Now , if A is nonzero , then we can divide through by A and get A 01 . So it is through the preservation of the additive rule that we can deduce that A 01 whenever A is nonzero . This means that the only way for a 0 exponent to be defined in a way that preserves the additive rule is if A 01 for nonzero A , so we define it to be so . Note that when A 0 we can ' t use this approach since we can ' t do the step of dividing through by A to get A 01 and , indeed , the apparent value of 00 can change depending on the context you ' re working in . So instead of trying to wrap our heads around trying to think of an interpretation of A 1 as some kind of repeated multiplication of A by itself 1 times , we can just impose that whatever value A 1 has , it must preserve the additive rule . With this in mind , let ' s try to figure out what value An can have under this restriction when n is a positive integer and A is nonzero . Using the additive rule , we get that AnnAnAn , but since AnnA 01 , this becomes 1 AnAn , or An 1 An . Since we can compute An , the expression on the right is perfectly well defined even if we didn ' t really define the left side . But this says that the only way that we can assign a value to An so that the additive rule is preserved through this new definition is if we define An to be 1 An . Overall it is not through the repeated multiplication definition that we end up with a value for negative exponents , it ' s through the process of preserving an important identity that we get it . This kind of thing also allows us to define fractional exponents like Anm when A is positive , real exponents and even complex exponents , you start with what you already know , find an important property to be preserved through the extension and define the extension so that the given property is not affected . You could say minus is the opposite of addition , and division is the opposite of multiplication , so An is A divided by itself n times . But why would we expect the opposite of addition to translate , in this case , to the opposite of multiplication ? Why doesn ' t it matter for something like cosn ? We have the opposite of addition in there , shouldn ' t cosn be the arccosn , the opposite of cosine ? It ' s the additive rule that forces our hand , and anytime you hear someone just say it ' s the opposite of addition so it becomes the opposite multiplication , they ' re implicitly using the additive rule to justify translating properties of addition into properties of multiplication . This reasoning shoves what actually is happening under the rug and doesn ' t build concepts to help understand other things like rationalrealcomplex exponents and other kinds of extensions .