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!
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top