Basic rule is that: a/b=c/d then, a+b/a-b = c+d/c-dbut suppose

  • Thread starter Alicia489
  • Start date
Basic rule is that:

a/b=c/d then, a+b/a-b = c+d/c-d

but suppose if we apply "componendo dividendo" just to the RHS TWICE, we get the original number... consider the example : 16/4 (which we know is equal to 4 or rather 4/1)
now applying componendo dividendo just once to 16/4 ,
we get 20/12 , then again applying componendo dividendo to
20/12 , we get 32/8 ,which is equal to 4/1 or 4.
but i know this is not even componendo -dividendo theorem,
but when we apply it twice to the RHS v get back the RHS......
this was quite useful when solving a trigonometry problem....but according to the teachers there is no such theory.......so, not very useful.
so, the question is ,what is it that you find wrong with this "theory" i used.(if any,specify)......??
 
21,993
3,264
Re: Componendo-dividendo

Whatever you said in your post is complete correct. What exactly did you want to ask??
 
32,399
4,156
Re: Componendo-dividendo

Basic rule is that:

a/b=c/d then, a+b/a-b = c+d/c-d
If the second equation is
[tex]\frac{a+b}{a-b} = \frac{c+d}{c-d}[/tex]
then what you have written is incorrect. What you wrote is the same as a + (b/a) - b = c + (d/c) - d.

When you write fractions with numerators or denominators with multiple terms, you need to used parentheses around the entire numerator or denominator, like so:
(a+b)/(a-b) = (c+d)/(c-d)

(Or learn to write then using LaTeX...)
 
Re: Componendo-dividendo

micromass, thakyou for replying.My question is whether you can point out any mistake in it.

and Mark44
Sorry for not putting it in the parenthesis.What i actually meant to post was
(a+b)/(a-b) = (c+d)/(c-d).
 

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor
41,625
823
Re: Componendo-dividendo

What statement was proved?
 
Re: Componendo-dividendo

the above statement ofcourse.
 
Re: Componendo-dividendo

nice theory
 
Your teachers are doing you a disservice by stating that there is " no such theory" when what they really mean is that there is no such commonly known useful theory. However, your proposition is correct, and provable.
For conciseness, let there be a Componendo et Dividendo operator, which we shall show as CeD{}, such that CeD{a/b} = (a+b)/(a-b)
Then the original theorem says, in our nomenclature, if a/b = c/d then Ced{a/b} = Ced{c/d}

What you are calculating then is Ced{Ced{a/b}}
Expanding, Ced{Ced{a/b}} = Ced{(a+b)/(a-b)} = ((a+b)+(a-b))/((a+b)-(a-b)) = 2a/2b = a/b. QED

Therefore the CeD of a CeD will always return the original ratio (specifically, to double the original expression). Thus it could well be called the Alicia theorem, a provable theorem. But it is unlikely to become a widely known one, since, other than its curiosity value, it does not appear to have any wide applicability as it does nothing to simplify the original expression.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top