MHB Evaluate 3/7 r + 5/8 s when r = 14 and s = 8

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobisaka
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To evaluate the expression 3/7 r + 5/8 s with r = 14 and s = 8, the correct approach is to treat it as (3/7) * r + (5/8) * s. This means calculating (3/7) * 14, which simplifies to 6, and (5/8) * 8, which equals 5. The final result is 6 + 5, totaling 11. The confusion arose from misinterpreting the notation, where spaces indicate multiplication rather than division. Proper notation is essential to avoid ambiguity in mathematical expressions.
bobisaka
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I'm currently on khan academy and am stuck at solving the following question. I try to use the 'multiply fraction by whole number' solution, however the correct solution is different. What is the correct way to solving this?

3/7 r + 5/8 s when r = 14 and s = 8

The way i solve it leads me to: 3/98 + 5/8
(using this process 3/7 * 14/1 = 3/7 * 1/14 = 3/98 )
However the correct solution is: 3/7(14) + 5/8(8)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello, and welcome to the forum.

bobisaka said:
using this process 3/7 * 14/1 = 3/7 * 1/14 = 3/98
You cannot simply change 14/1 to 1/14.

When you have a sequence of multiplications and divisions with no parentheses, they should be evaluated left-to-right. So $3/7r$ means $(3/7)\cdot r=3r/7$. Therefore,
\[
\frac37\cdot\frac{14}{1}+\frac58\cdot\frac81=3\cdot2+5=11.
\]

Edit: In fact $3/7r$ does look confusing and I understand people who take it for $3/(7r)$. Therefore, such notation should be avoided by using fractions like $$\frac37\cdot r$$ or parentheses. Nevertheless, this does not change the rule: a sequence of multiplications and divisions is evaluated left-to-right.
 
bobisaka said:
Hi all,

I'm currently on khan academy and am stuck at solving the following question. I try to use the 'multiply fraction by whole number' solution, however the correct solution is different. What is the correct way to solving this?

3/7 r + 5/8 s when r = 14 and s = 8
Notice the space between the "7" and the "r" and the space between the "8" and the "s". That indicates that this is the fraction 3/7 times the number r and the fraction 5/8 times the number s. With r= 14, 3/7 times 14 is the same as \frac{3}{7}\frac{14}{1}= \frac{42}{7}= 6 or \frac{3}{7}14= 3\frac{14}{7}= 3(2)= 6. And with s= 8, 5/8 times 8 is \frac{5}{8}8= 5\frac{8}{8}. The result is 6+ 5= 11.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> The way i solve it leads me to: 3/98 + 5/8<br /> (using this process 3/7 * 14/1 = 3/7 * 1/14 = 3/98 ) </div> </div> </blockquote> That is peculiar! I had thought you were interpreting &quot;3/7 r&quot; as &quot;3/7r&quot; where there is no space and so means \frac{3}{7r} (which is why writing fractions &quot;in line&quot; as &quot;3/7&quot; rather that &quot;\frac{3}{7}&quot; tends to be ambiguous). But why in the world would you think that &quot;<div style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">3/7 * 14/1 = 3/7 * 1/14&quot;? <b>Multiplying</b> by a/b is NOT <b>multiplying</b> by b/a because a/b and b/a are not the same thing. Perhaps you are remembering a garbled form of &quot;to <b>divide</b> by a fraction invert and <b>multiply</b>. That is \frac{a}{b}\div \frac{c}{d}= \frac{a}{g}\cdot\frac{d}{c}. But that is changing from <b>division</b> to <b>multiplication</b>.</span>&#8203;</div><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><br /> However the correct solution is: 3/7(14) + 5/8(8)[/QUOTE]</span>
 
Hi all,

Thanks for the feedback. You stand correct in that I got confused with dividing fraction by whole number.

That clears everything. Thank you.
 
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...
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...
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...
Back
Top