Why are negative exponents dividing instead of multiplying?












1














In trying to relearn scientific notation after years since I left school, I noticed that when we get a very small number and convert it to scientific notation, you're actually multiplying the tiny number a certain number of times so that the number becomes something between 1 and 10, and you write the inverse equation as scientific notation.
Example:
0.0035



I multiply it by 10³(or 1000) and then I have it written in scientific notation as 3.5 X 10-3, which is not actually the formula describing the process to get scientific notation, but rather the formula that reverts it.



Now, when converting a large number- e.g 13,000,000 - into scientific notation, I figured out you have to divide it so as to get a number between 1 and 10, something that can't be achieved - I thought - if the exponentiation is doing successive multiplications.



So I ended up figuring out a negative exponent, to be capable of reverting the scientific notation described on the first example above, which turns a 3.5 back into 0.0035, had to be performing successive divisions.



So, for my second example I have to do 13,000,000 ÷ 107 or 13,000,000 x -7, in either case getting 1.3, so that 13,000,00 becomes 1.3 x 107, again, the resulting formula, i.e scientific notation for this number is not describing the actual process to get the number converted, but rather the formula that reverts this process.



Now, I'm trying but still haven't wrapped my head around this: why negative exponents are performing successive divisions?
Why aren't exponentiations always performing multiplications?
I don't know if it's only bad memory but I always remembered exponentiation exclusively as an abbreviated form of writing successive multiplications of a number by itself, never as divisions.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • $a^{-b}*a^{b} = a^0 = 1$ in order for this to be true, you need the multiplicative identity, which leads to division.
    – user29418
    Nov 25 at 2:41










  • Have you seen these previous questions? math.stackexchange.com/q/71891/856 math.stackexchange.com/q/819218/856
    – Rahul
    Nov 25 at 4:07












  • @Rahul, no, I'm going to take a look at them
    – Ezequiel Barbosa
    Nov 25 at 10:19
















1














In trying to relearn scientific notation after years since I left school, I noticed that when we get a very small number and convert it to scientific notation, you're actually multiplying the tiny number a certain number of times so that the number becomes something between 1 and 10, and you write the inverse equation as scientific notation.
Example:
0.0035



I multiply it by 10³(or 1000) and then I have it written in scientific notation as 3.5 X 10-3, which is not actually the formula describing the process to get scientific notation, but rather the formula that reverts it.



Now, when converting a large number- e.g 13,000,000 - into scientific notation, I figured out you have to divide it so as to get a number between 1 and 10, something that can't be achieved - I thought - if the exponentiation is doing successive multiplications.



So I ended up figuring out a negative exponent, to be capable of reverting the scientific notation described on the first example above, which turns a 3.5 back into 0.0035, had to be performing successive divisions.



So, for my second example I have to do 13,000,000 ÷ 107 or 13,000,000 x -7, in either case getting 1.3, so that 13,000,00 becomes 1.3 x 107, again, the resulting formula, i.e scientific notation for this number is not describing the actual process to get the number converted, but rather the formula that reverts this process.



Now, I'm trying but still haven't wrapped my head around this: why negative exponents are performing successive divisions?
Why aren't exponentiations always performing multiplications?
I don't know if it's only bad memory but I always remembered exponentiation exclusively as an abbreviated form of writing successive multiplications of a number by itself, never as divisions.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • $a^{-b}*a^{b} = a^0 = 1$ in order for this to be true, you need the multiplicative identity, which leads to division.
    – user29418
    Nov 25 at 2:41










  • Have you seen these previous questions? math.stackexchange.com/q/71891/856 math.stackexchange.com/q/819218/856
    – Rahul
    Nov 25 at 4:07












  • @Rahul, no, I'm going to take a look at them
    – Ezequiel Barbosa
    Nov 25 at 10:19














1












1








1







In trying to relearn scientific notation after years since I left school, I noticed that when we get a very small number and convert it to scientific notation, you're actually multiplying the tiny number a certain number of times so that the number becomes something between 1 and 10, and you write the inverse equation as scientific notation.
Example:
0.0035



I multiply it by 10³(or 1000) and then I have it written in scientific notation as 3.5 X 10-3, which is not actually the formula describing the process to get scientific notation, but rather the formula that reverts it.



Now, when converting a large number- e.g 13,000,000 - into scientific notation, I figured out you have to divide it so as to get a number between 1 and 10, something that can't be achieved - I thought - if the exponentiation is doing successive multiplications.



So I ended up figuring out a negative exponent, to be capable of reverting the scientific notation described on the first example above, which turns a 3.5 back into 0.0035, had to be performing successive divisions.



So, for my second example I have to do 13,000,000 ÷ 107 or 13,000,000 x -7, in either case getting 1.3, so that 13,000,00 becomes 1.3 x 107, again, the resulting formula, i.e scientific notation for this number is not describing the actual process to get the number converted, but rather the formula that reverts this process.



Now, I'm trying but still haven't wrapped my head around this: why negative exponents are performing successive divisions?
Why aren't exponentiations always performing multiplications?
I don't know if it's only bad memory but I always remembered exponentiation exclusively as an abbreviated form of writing successive multiplications of a number by itself, never as divisions.










share|cite|improve this question













In trying to relearn scientific notation after years since I left school, I noticed that when we get a very small number and convert it to scientific notation, you're actually multiplying the tiny number a certain number of times so that the number becomes something between 1 and 10, and you write the inverse equation as scientific notation.
Example:
0.0035



I multiply it by 10³(or 1000) and then I have it written in scientific notation as 3.5 X 10-3, which is not actually the formula describing the process to get scientific notation, but rather the formula that reverts it.



Now, when converting a large number- e.g 13,000,000 - into scientific notation, I figured out you have to divide it so as to get a number between 1 and 10, something that can't be achieved - I thought - if the exponentiation is doing successive multiplications.



So I ended up figuring out a negative exponent, to be capable of reverting the scientific notation described on the first example above, which turns a 3.5 back into 0.0035, had to be performing successive divisions.



So, for my second example I have to do 13,000,000 ÷ 107 or 13,000,000 x -7, in either case getting 1.3, so that 13,000,00 becomes 1.3 x 107, again, the resulting formula, i.e scientific notation for this number is not describing the actual process to get the number converted, but rather the formula that reverts this process.



Now, I'm trying but still haven't wrapped my head around this: why negative exponents are performing successive divisions?
Why aren't exponentiations always performing multiplications?
I don't know if it's only bad memory but I always remembered exponentiation exclusively as an abbreviated form of writing successive multiplications of a number by itself, never as divisions.







exponentiation






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 25 at 2:35









Ezequiel Barbosa

27927




27927












  • $a^{-b}*a^{b} = a^0 = 1$ in order for this to be true, you need the multiplicative identity, which leads to division.
    – user29418
    Nov 25 at 2:41










  • Have you seen these previous questions? math.stackexchange.com/q/71891/856 math.stackexchange.com/q/819218/856
    – Rahul
    Nov 25 at 4:07












  • @Rahul, no, I'm going to take a look at them
    – Ezequiel Barbosa
    Nov 25 at 10:19


















  • $a^{-b}*a^{b} = a^0 = 1$ in order for this to be true, you need the multiplicative identity, which leads to division.
    – user29418
    Nov 25 at 2:41










  • Have you seen these previous questions? math.stackexchange.com/q/71891/856 math.stackexchange.com/q/819218/856
    – Rahul
    Nov 25 at 4:07












  • @Rahul, no, I'm going to take a look at them
    – Ezequiel Barbosa
    Nov 25 at 10:19
















$a^{-b}*a^{b} = a^0 = 1$ in order for this to be true, you need the multiplicative identity, which leads to division.
– user29418
Nov 25 at 2:41




$a^{-b}*a^{b} = a^0 = 1$ in order for this to be true, you need the multiplicative identity, which leads to division.
– user29418
Nov 25 at 2:41












Have you seen these previous questions? math.stackexchange.com/q/71891/856 math.stackexchange.com/q/819218/856
– Rahul
Nov 25 at 4:07






Have you seen these previous questions? math.stackexchange.com/q/71891/856 math.stackexchange.com/q/819218/856
– Rahul
Nov 25 at 4:07














@Rahul, no, I'm going to take a look at them
– Ezequiel Barbosa
Nov 25 at 10:19




@Rahul, no, I'm going to take a look at them
– Ezequiel Barbosa
Nov 25 at 10:19










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2














Note that $$10^{-1}=0.1=frac {1}{10}$$ Thus $$ 10^{-2} = 10^{-1} times
10^{-1} = frac {1}{10}times frac {1}{10}= frac {1}{100}$$



Thus we are still multiplying which means we add powers but powers are negatives.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Quite interesting, fascinating in fact, because we can represent the process in various manners and still be correct.
    – Ezequiel Barbosa
    Nov 25 at 10:22






  • 1




    @EzequielBarbosa No, I don't think so. We aren't representing any process in various manners and getting the same answer, we are just doing the same thing and stating mathematical identities. It is factual that $xy^{-1}=x/y$ for any real $x,y$.
    – YiFan
    Nov 25 at 12:53



















2














One way to remember this is that a positive exponent means you are inserting factors, while a negative exponent means you are removing factors.



So, $1.3times 10^{3}=1.3cdot(10cdot 10cdot 10)=1300$, while $1.3times 10^{-3}=1.3div (10cdot 10cdot 10)=0.0013$.



Addendum: You seem to be confused by the process. It is true that what you have to do to the number to arrive at the correct notation is “opposite” in some sense. Let me show you why.



Suppose you want to write the number 571000 in scientific notation. I think you have no problem coming up with the mantissa (the part out front without the power of $10$). It’s just $5.71$, right? Always a single nonzero digit followed by the decimal point and then the rest of the digits.



Now the thing is to ask, “If I start with the mantissa $5.71$, what do I need to do to it to end up with the original number?” Since this always amounts to shifting the decimal point either right or left, it always means throwing in repeated multipliers (to move the decimal point to the right) or divisors (to move it left) of $10$. In this case, starting with $5.71$, you need to move the decimal point $5$ places to the right to reconstruct the original number, so $$571000=5.71times 10^5$$



Note that I did this a little differently than you did. You are focusing on how to produce the mantissa (divide $571000$ by $10^5$) and then undoing that by multiplying by $10^5$. The reason they are the same is that
$$571000=571000times(underbrace{10^{-5}times 10^5}_1)$$
$$=(571000times 10^{-5})times 10^5$$
$$=(5.71)times 10^5$$



But you can skip this step and just write down the mantissa directly by observation (always of the form $n.nnnnn$ etc) and ask “What else do I need to recover the original number from this mantissa?”



Hope this helps.






share|cite|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012360%2fwhy-are-negative-exponents-dividing-instead-of-multiplying%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    Note that $$10^{-1}=0.1=frac {1}{10}$$ Thus $$ 10^{-2} = 10^{-1} times
    10^{-1} = frac {1}{10}times frac {1}{10}= frac {1}{100}$$



    Thus we are still multiplying which means we add powers but powers are negatives.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Quite interesting, fascinating in fact, because we can represent the process in various manners and still be correct.
      – Ezequiel Barbosa
      Nov 25 at 10:22






    • 1




      @EzequielBarbosa No, I don't think so. We aren't representing any process in various manners and getting the same answer, we are just doing the same thing and stating mathematical identities. It is factual that $xy^{-1}=x/y$ for any real $x,y$.
      – YiFan
      Nov 25 at 12:53
















    2














    Note that $$10^{-1}=0.1=frac {1}{10}$$ Thus $$ 10^{-2} = 10^{-1} times
    10^{-1} = frac {1}{10}times frac {1}{10}= frac {1}{100}$$



    Thus we are still multiplying which means we add powers but powers are negatives.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Quite interesting, fascinating in fact, because we can represent the process in various manners and still be correct.
      – Ezequiel Barbosa
      Nov 25 at 10:22






    • 1




      @EzequielBarbosa No, I don't think so. We aren't representing any process in various manners and getting the same answer, we are just doing the same thing and stating mathematical identities. It is factual that $xy^{-1}=x/y$ for any real $x,y$.
      – YiFan
      Nov 25 at 12:53














    2












    2








    2






    Note that $$10^{-1}=0.1=frac {1}{10}$$ Thus $$ 10^{-2} = 10^{-1} times
    10^{-1} = frac {1}{10}times frac {1}{10}= frac {1}{100}$$



    Thus we are still multiplying which means we add powers but powers are negatives.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Note that $$10^{-1}=0.1=frac {1}{10}$$ Thus $$ 10^{-2} = 10^{-1} times
    10^{-1} = frac {1}{10}times frac {1}{10}= frac {1}{100}$$



    Thus we are still multiplying which means we add powers but powers are negatives.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 25 at 2:47









    Mohammad Riazi-Kermani

    40.8k42058




    40.8k42058












    • Quite interesting, fascinating in fact, because we can represent the process in various manners and still be correct.
      – Ezequiel Barbosa
      Nov 25 at 10:22






    • 1




      @EzequielBarbosa No, I don't think so. We aren't representing any process in various manners and getting the same answer, we are just doing the same thing and stating mathematical identities. It is factual that $xy^{-1}=x/y$ for any real $x,y$.
      – YiFan
      Nov 25 at 12:53


















    • Quite interesting, fascinating in fact, because we can represent the process in various manners and still be correct.
      – Ezequiel Barbosa
      Nov 25 at 10:22






    • 1




      @EzequielBarbosa No, I don't think so. We aren't representing any process in various manners and getting the same answer, we are just doing the same thing and stating mathematical identities. It is factual that $xy^{-1}=x/y$ for any real $x,y$.
      – YiFan
      Nov 25 at 12:53
















    Quite interesting, fascinating in fact, because we can represent the process in various manners and still be correct.
    – Ezequiel Barbosa
    Nov 25 at 10:22




    Quite interesting, fascinating in fact, because we can represent the process in various manners and still be correct.
    – Ezequiel Barbosa
    Nov 25 at 10:22




    1




    1




    @EzequielBarbosa No, I don't think so. We aren't representing any process in various manners and getting the same answer, we are just doing the same thing and stating mathematical identities. It is factual that $xy^{-1}=x/y$ for any real $x,y$.
    – YiFan
    Nov 25 at 12:53




    @EzequielBarbosa No, I don't think so. We aren't representing any process in various manners and getting the same answer, we are just doing the same thing and stating mathematical identities. It is factual that $xy^{-1}=x/y$ for any real $x,y$.
    – YiFan
    Nov 25 at 12:53











    2














    One way to remember this is that a positive exponent means you are inserting factors, while a negative exponent means you are removing factors.



    So, $1.3times 10^{3}=1.3cdot(10cdot 10cdot 10)=1300$, while $1.3times 10^{-3}=1.3div (10cdot 10cdot 10)=0.0013$.



    Addendum: You seem to be confused by the process. It is true that what you have to do to the number to arrive at the correct notation is “opposite” in some sense. Let me show you why.



    Suppose you want to write the number 571000 in scientific notation. I think you have no problem coming up with the mantissa (the part out front without the power of $10$). It’s just $5.71$, right? Always a single nonzero digit followed by the decimal point and then the rest of the digits.



    Now the thing is to ask, “If I start with the mantissa $5.71$, what do I need to do to it to end up with the original number?” Since this always amounts to shifting the decimal point either right or left, it always means throwing in repeated multipliers (to move the decimal point to the right) or divisors (to move it left) of $10$. In this case, starting with $5.71$, you need to move the decimal point $5$ places to the right to reconstruct the original number, so $$571000=5.71times 10^5$$



    Note that I did this a little differently than you did. You are focusing on how to produce the mantissa (divide $571000$ by $10^5$) and then undoing that by multiplying by $10^5$. The reason they are the same is that
    $$571000=571000times(underbrace{10^{-5}times 10^5}_1)$$
    $$=(571000times 10^{-5})times 10^5$$
    $$=(5.71)times 10^5$$



    But you can skip this step and just write down the mantissa directly by observation (always of the form $n.nnnnn$ etc) and ask “What else do I need to recover the original number from this mantissa?”



    Hope this helps.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      2














      One way to remember this is that a positive exponent means you are inserting factors, while a negative exponent means you are removing factors.



      So, $1.3times 10^{3}=1.3cdot(10cdot 10cdot 10)=1300$, while $1.3times 10^{-3}=1.3div (10cdot 10cdot 10)=0.0013$.



      Addendum: You seem to be confused by the process. It is true that what you have to do to the number to arrive at the correct notation is “opposite” in some sense. Let me show you why.



      Suppose you want to write the number 571000 in scientific notation. I think you have no problem coming up with the mantissa (the part out front without the power of $10$). It’s just $5.71$, right? Always a single nonzero digit followed by the decimal point and then the rest of the digits.



      Now the thing is to ask, “If I start with the mantissa $5.71$, what do I need to do to it to end up with the original number?” Since this always amounts to shifting the decimal point either right or left, it always means throwing in repeated multipliers (to move the decimal point to the right) or divisors (to move it left) of $10$. In this case, starting with $5.71$, you need to move the decimal point $5$ places to the right to reconstruct the original number, so $$571000=5.71times 10^5$$



      Note that I did this a little differently than you did. You are focusing on how to produce the mantissa (divide $571000$ by $10^5$) and then undoing that by multiplying by $10^5$. The reason they are the same is that
      $$571000=571000times(underbrace{10^{-5}times 10^5}_1)$$
      $$=(571000times 10^{-5})times 10^5$$
      $$=(5.71)times 10^5$$



      But you can skip this step and just write down the mantissa directly by observation (always of the form $n.nnnnn$ etc) and ask “What else do I need to recover the original number from this mantissa?”



      Hope this helps.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        2












        2








        2






        One way to remember this is that a positive exponent means you are inserting factors, while a negative exponent means you are removing factors.



        So, $1.3times 10^{3}=1.3cdot(10cdot 10cdot 10)=1300$, while $1.3times 10^{-3}=1.3div (10cdot 10cdot 10)=0.0013$.



        Addendum: You seem to be confused by the process. It is true that what you have to do to the number to arrive at the correct notation is “opposite” in some sense. Let me show you why.



        Suppose you want to write the number 571000 in scientific notation. I think you have no problem coming up with the mantissa (the part out front without the power of $10$). It’s just $5.71$, right? Always a single nonzero digit followed by the decimal point and then the rest of the digits.



        Now the thing is to ask, “If I start with the mantissa $5.71$, what do I need to do to it to end up with the original number?” Since this always amounts to shifting the decimal point either right or left, it always means throwing in repeated multipliers (to move the decimal point to the right) or divisors (to move it left) of $10$. In this case, starting with $5.71$, you need to move the decimal point $5$ places to the right to reconstruct the original number, so $$571000=5.71times 10^5$$



        Note that I did this a little differently than you did. You are focusing on how to produce the mantissa (divide $571000$ by $10^5$) and then undoing that by multiplying by $10^5$. The reason they are the same is that
        $$571000=571000times(underbrace{10^{-5}times 10^5}_1)$$
        $$=(571000times 10^{-5})times 10^5$$
        $$=(5.71)times 10^5$$



        But you can skip this step and just write down the mantissa directly by observation (always of the form $n.nnnnn$ etc) and ask “What else do I need to recover the original number from this mantissa?”



        Hope this helps.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        One way to remember this is that a positive exponent means you are inserting factors, while a negative exponent means you are removing factors.



        So, $1.3times 10^{3}=1.3cdot(10cdot 10cdot 10)=1300$, while $1.3times 10^{-3}=1.3div (10cdot 10cdot 10)=0.0013$.



        Addendum: You seem to be confused by the process. It is true that what you have to do to the number to arrive at the correct notation is “opposite” in some sense. Let me show you why.



        Suppose you want to write the number 571000 in scientific notation. I think you have no problem coming up with the mantissa (the part out front without the power of $10$). It’s just $5.71$, right? Always a single nonzero digit followed by the decimal point and then the rest of the digits.



        Now the thing is to ask, “If I start with the mantissa $5.71$, what do I need to do to it to end up with the original number?” Since this always amounts to shifting the decimal point either right or left, it always means throwing in repeated multipliers (to move the decimal point to the right) or divisors (to move it left) of $10$. In this case, starting with $5.71$, you need to move the decimal point $5$ places to the right to reconstruct the original number, so $$571000=5.71times 10^5$$



        Note that I did this a little differently than you did. You are focusing on how to produce the mantissa (divide $571000$ by $10^5$) and then undoing that by multiplying by $10^5$. The reason they are the same is that
        $$571000=571000times(underbrace{10^{-5}times 10^5}_1)$$
        $$=(571000times 10^{-5})times 10^5$$
        $$=(5.71)times 10^5$$



        But you can skip this step and just write down the mantissa directly by observation (always of the form $n.nnnnn$ etc) and ask “What else do I need to recover the original number from this mantissa?”



        Hope this helps.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 25 at 12:17

























        answered Nov 25 at 2:45









        MPW

        29.8k12056




        29.8k12056






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012360%2fwhy-are-negative-exponents-dividing-instead-of-multiplying%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Musa