>>1057595that notation is fucking terrible, i can't even tell what the last row is supposed to mean
they all read like regular substractions in the exponents (so 1/2-1=-1/2, etc), but i assume that's not what they want because otherwise you would get the solution without having to do anything else. if they mean (x^1/2)^-1 then you just have to multiply the exponents, but again that's also kinda stupid for an assignment.
the first row is just more of
>>1057601, just don't get tricked by coefficients like 1/2 or -1/3. they are not relevant and you can just factor them out and work with the term that contains x.
