MHB MHB Simplify Fraction: 196707/250971

  • Thread starter Thread starter Petrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fraction Simplify
AI Thread Summary
The fraction 196707/250971 can be simplified using the Euclidean Algorithm, which reveals that the greatest common divisor is 6783, reducing the fraction to 29/37. Participants in the discussion shared various methods for simplification, including divisibility tests for numbers like 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 19. The calculations confirmed that both the numerator and denominator are divisible by these factors at different stages. Ultimately, the consensus is that the simplest form of the fraction is indeed 29/37. The discussion highlights the effectiveness of the Euclidean Algorithm and divisibility tests in fraction simplification.
Petrus
Messages
702
Reaction score
0
Hello MHB,
Simplify as far as possible without any calculator $$\frac{196707}{250971}$$
Hint:
Euclidean Algorithm

Regards,
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Petrus said:
Hello MHB,
Simplify as far as possible without any calculator $$\frac{196707}{250971}$$
Hint:
Euclidean Algorithm

Regards,

The Euclidean Algorithm gives us that the greatest common denominator is 6783.
Therefore the fraction simplifies to [math]\frac{29}{37}[/math].
 
I like Serena said:
The Euclidean Algorithm gives us that the greatest common denominator is 6783.
Therefore the fraction simplifies to [math]\frac{29}{37}[/math].
Hello I like Serena,
Thanks for joining the 'challange question'(Cool)! You correctly calculated gcd and simplify! I totaly forgot about this one but I Will post full solution when I got time!:)

Regards
$$|\pi\rangle$$
 
Here is a way to proceed.

The sum of the digits of both numbers is a multiple of 3 so both numbers are divisible by 3. Divide them both by 3

\frac{65569}{83657}

Clearly neither divisible by 5

break this number up like this 65569 = 065 569 , into groups of 3 digits each , now subtract, 569 - 65 = 504

This gives us at once a divisibility test for 7, 11, and 13

if 504 is divisible by 7, so is 65569

if 504 is divisible by 11 so is 65569

if 504 is divisible by 13 so is 65569

we see 7 divides 504 but 11 and 13 do not

Do the same for 83657 = 083 657 , subtract 657 - 83 = 574

It's easy to see 574 is divisible by 7 since previously 504 was divisible by 7 and this is 70 more than that. No need to test for 11 and 13 since those factors won't cancel if they are there (they are not)

Divide them both by 7.

\frac{9367}{11951}

perform previous procedure again

367 - 9 = 358 not divisible by 7.

Note* Divisibility test for 3 did not have to be done TWICE because sum of digits was NOT 9 but in general you have to repeat the test until divisibility posibility is exhausted.

For divisibility by 17 , cut off the last digit of 9367 , multiply it by 5 , then subtract that from the truncated number.

936 - 35 = 901

If 901 is divisible by 17 then so is 9367 , it is.

Do the same for 11951,

1195 - 5 = 1190

If 1190 is divisible by 17 , then so is 11951 , it is.

Divide them both by 17

\frac{551}{703}

apply divisibility test again for 17

55 - 5 = 50

not divisible by 17 so neither is 551

For divisibility by 19 , cut off the last digit of 551 , multiply it by 2, add that to the truncated number. 55 + 2 = 57

If 57 is ... well you get the idea , it is

Do the same for 703

70 + 6 = 76 is divisible by 19

Divide them both by 19

\frac{29}{37}

It's quite obvious now you can stop.

:)
 
agentmulder said:
Here is a way to proceed.

The sum of the digits of both numbers is a multiple of 3 so both numbers are divisible by 3. Divide them both by 3

\frac{65569}{83657}

Clearly neither divisible by 5

break this number up like this 65569 = 065 569 , into groups of 3 digits each , now subtract, 569 - 65 = 504

This gives us at once a divisibility test for 7, 11, and 13

if 504 is divisible by 7, so is 65569

if 504 is divisible by 11 so is 65569

if 504 is divisible by 13 so is 65569

we see 7 divides 504 but 11 and 13 do not

Do the same for 83657 = 083 657 , subtract 657 - 83 = 574

It's easy to see 574 is divisible by 7 since previously 504 was divisible by 7 and this is 70 more than that. No need to test for 11 and 13 since those factors won't cancel if they are there (they are not)

Divide them both by 7.

\frac{9367}{11951}

perform previous procedure again

367 - 9 = 358 not divisible by 7.

Note* Divisibility test for 3 did not have to be done TWICE because sum of digits was NOT 9 but in general you have to repeat the test until divisibility posibility is exhausted.

For divisibility by 17 , cut off the last digit of 9367 , multiply it by 5 , then subtract that from the truncated number.

936 - 35 = 901

If 901 is divisible by 17 then so is 9367 , it is.

Do the same for 11951,

1195 - 5 = 1190

If 1190 is divisible by 17 , then so is 11951 , it is.

Divide them both by 17

\frac{551}{703}

apply divisibility test again for 17

55 - 5 = 50

not divisible by 17 so neither is 551

For divisibility by 19 , cut off the last digit of 551 , multiply it by 2, add that to the truncated number. 55 + 2 = 57

If 57 is ... well you get the idea , it is

Do the same for 703

70 + 6 = 76 is divisible by 19

Divide them both by 19

\frac{29}{37}

It's quite obvious now you can stop.

:)
Hello agentmulder,
Well done and thanks for my 'challange question'(Cool)! I did almost forgot about this method!

Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$
 
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...
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top