Proof of Multiplying by Fraction = Dividing by Inverse

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimgavagan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fraction Inverse
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the concept that dividing by a fraction is equivalent to multiplying by its inverse. It explains that division can be expressed as multiplication by the multiplicative inverse, where x/y equals x multiplied by y's reciprocal. The proof demonstrates that when y is a fraction, specifically a/b, the operation x/(a/b) simplifies to x multiplied by b/a. This relationship holds true as long as a and b are not zero. The explanation ultimately resolves the initial confusion regarding the proof's validity.
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: x \over y actually means x \cdot y^{-1} where y^{-1} is the number such that y \cdot y^{-1} = 1, called the "multiplicative inverse" or "reciprocal" of y. This number is unique. Obviously ({a \over b})^{-1} = {b \over a} (since {a \over b} \cdot {b \over a} = 1) as long as we have a, b \ne 0. (Also of note: 0^{-1} does not exist!

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

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


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh awesome! :D

Very much appreciated!
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top