Traditionally reversible enzyme inhibitors have been classified as competitive, uncompetitive, or non-competitive, according to their effects on "K"M and "V"max. These different effects result from the inhibitor binding to the enzyme E, to the enzyme–substrate complex ES, or to both, respectively. The division of these classes arises from a problem in their derivation and results in the need to use two different binding constants for one binding event. The binding of an inhibitor and its effect on the enzymatic activity are two distinctly different things, another problem the traditional equations fail to acknowledge. In noncompetitive inhibition the binding of the inhibitor results in 100% inhibition of the enzyme only, and fails to consider the possibility of anything in between. In noncompetitive inhibition, the inhibitor will bind to an enzyme at its allosteric site; therefore, the binding affinity, or inverse of "K"M, of the substrate with the enzyme will remain the same. On the other hand, the Vmax will decrease relative to an uninhibited enzyme. On a Lineweaver-Burk plot, the presence of a noncompetitive inhibitor is illustrated by a change in the y-intercept, defined as 1/Vmax. The x-intercept, defined as −1/"K"M, will remain the same. In competitive inhibition, the inhibitor will bind to an enzyme at the active site, competing with the substrate. As a result, the "K"M will increase and the Vmax will remain the same. The common form of the inhibitory term also obscures the relationship between the inhibitor binding to the enzyme and its relationship to any other binding term be it the Michaelis–Menten equation or a dose response curve associated with ligand receptor binding. To demonstrate the relationship the following rearrangement can be made: