Dividing fraction trick, why does it work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Euler
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fraction Work
AI Thread Summary
Dividing fractions involves flipping the second fraction and multiplying, which is rooted in the concept of the multiplicative inverse. The definition of division states that a divided by b equals c if and only if a equals c times b. This means that dividing by b is equivalent to multiplying by its inverse, denoted as b^-1 or 1/b. The process of flipping the fraction effectively changes the operation from division to multiplication, aligning with the mathematical principles of rational expressions. Thus, the trick works because it leverages the relationship between division and multiplication through the use of multiplicative inverses.
Euler
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I am going to assume everyone was taught the method where if you want to divide to fractions then you simply flip the second and then multiply them. I've been trying to see if I could find a reason as to why it works but I can't seem to. Does anyone know why or want to give me some hints?

Thanks for any help you can offer!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Euler said:
I am going to assume everyone was taught the method where if you want to divide to fractions then you simply flip the second and then multiply them. I've been trying to see if I could find a reason as to why it works but I can't seem to. Does anyone know why or want to give me some hints?

Thanks for any help you can offer!

Multiplication is the reverse of division.
If you turn the fraction upside down, then you will have to change the operation.(Multiplication to division and vise versa)
 
##\frac a b## is defined as ##a \cdot \frac 1 b##. The latter term is the multiplicative inverse. The multiplicative inverse of a rational ##\frac p q## is ##\frac q p##.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
D H said:
##\frac a b## is defined as ##a \cdot \frac 1 b##. The latter term is the multiplicative inverse. The multiplicative inverse of a rational ##\frac p q## is ##\frac q p##.

Thank-you, that is very helpful.
 
A reasonable mathematical definition of division for real numbers is $$a\div b=c\text{ if and only if }a=c\times b.$$
The multiplicative inverse of a real number ##b## is the unique real number, denoted ##b^{-1}## or ##\frac{1}{b}##, such that ##b\times b^{-1}=1##. We see that $$a\times b^{-1}=(c\times b)\times b^{-1}=c\times( b\times b^{-1})=c\times 1=c$$, and so $$a\times b^{-1}=c.$$

Since both $$a\div b=c\text{ and } a\times b^{-1}=c,$$ we get that $$a\div b=a\times b^{-1},$$ and division by ##b## is the same as multiplication by the multiplicative inverse of ##b##. Because of the way that multiplication of rational expressions is defined, the multiplicative inverse of a rational expression is just that expression "flipped".
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
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...
Back
Top