Proof of Multiplying by Fraction = Dividing by Inverse

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jimgavagan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fraction Inverse
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion clarifies the mathematical proof that multiplying by a fraction is equivalent to dividing by its inverse. The key concept is that division by a number, represented as x/y, can be rewritten as x multiplied by the multiplicative inverse of y (y^{-1}). The proof demonstrates that x/(a/b) equals x multiplied by (b/a), confirming the relationship between division and multiplication by the reciprocal. This explanation effectively addresses the initial confusion regarding the proof's validity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division)
  • Familiarity with the concept of multiplicative inverses or reciprocals
  • Knowledge of fractions and their manipulation
  • Basic algebraic principles, including variable representation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of multiplicative inverses in greater detail
  • Explore the concept of rational numbers and their operations
  • Learn about algebraic proofs and their structures
  • Investigate the applications of fractions in real-world scenarios
USEFUL FOR

Students learning mathematics, educators teaching arithmetic and algebra, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of fractions and division principles.

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

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

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


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh awesome! :D

Very much appreciated!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K