Proof of Multiplying by Fraction = Dividing by Inverse

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimgavagan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fraction Inverse
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the concept that dividing by a fraction is equivalent to multiplying by its inverse. It explains that division can be expressed as multiplication by the multiplicative inverse, where x/y equals x multiplied by y's reciprocal. The proof demonstrates that when y is a fraction, specifically a/b, the operation x/(a/b) simplifies to x multiplied by b/a. This relationship holds true as long as a and b are not zero. The explanation ultimately resolves the initial confusion regarding the proof's validity.
jimgavagan
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Supposedly this proof answers my question.

8 / 16 = .5
8 / 8 = 1
8 / 4 = 2
8 / 2 = 4
8 / 1 = 8
8 / .5 = 16
8 * 2/1 = 8 / .5

I'm just wondering how this proof answers my question?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org


It doesn't ... and that's not a proof o__O

It follows kind of from "definition" of division: x \over y actually means x \cdot y^{-1} where y^{-1} is the number such that y \cdot y^{-1} = 1, called the "multiplicative inverse" or "reciprocal" of y. This number is unique. Obviously ({a \over b})^{-1} = {b \over a} (since {a \over b} \cdot {b \over a} = 1) as long as we have a, b \ne 0. (Also of note: 0^{-1} does not exist!

So it turns out that since {x \over y} = x \cdot y^{-1}, setting y = {a \over b} we get

"{{x} \over {a \over b}}" = {x} \cdot ({a \over b})^{-1} = {x} \cdot {b \over a} (again provided a, b \ne 0). I hope this explanation helps.
 
Last edited:


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh awesome! :D

Very much appreciated!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top