# The equality of x^n/x^m and x^(n-m) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 2, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equality-of-x-n-x-m-and-x-n-m/680372 "2014-02-02T19:56:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 9
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equality-of-x-n-x-m-and-x-n-m/680372/9 "2014-02-03T00:23:07Z")
> [@leahcim](#): > > Do people typically spell it wrong? If they do, I hadn’t noticed. Mostly people just think my RL name is “Leah”. Uh, yeah. Just search for **leachim** [_sic_] and you’ll find a great many posts spelling your name thus. Example: > [@Motion and Kinetic Energy: a question for science experts](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/motion-and-kinetic-energy-a-question-for-science-experts/677553/9): > > I deeply resent the idea that I know what I’m talking about! > > As **leachim** says this is Mach’s principle. It has the status of being an idea that a lot physicists really like, but there aren’t really any theories worth talking about that are truly 100% Machian (i.e. all inertial effects are due to interactions between matter). Despite the fact that Einstein obviously held Mach’s principle in high esteem, general relativity is not Machian. Whether an observer feels inertial forces in relativity is related to geodesics which are defined locally. I.e. you don’t need to look at the whole of space to decide which inertial forces someone feels in GR. I myself only just noticed the correct spelling of your name rather recently. :smack: (And there are a few here who think my username is **Senegold** [_sic_] 😉 ) --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equality-of-x-n-x-m-and-x-n-m/680372)._