Proof to find fraction inbetween to fraction

  • Thread starter Thread starter Taylor_1989
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fraction Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding a fraction between two given fractions, specifically between 13/15 and 14/15. One method discussed involves converting the fractions to percentages, averaging them, and converting back to a fraction, resulting in 9/10. The algebraic proof for finding an in-between fraction involves manipulating inequalities and factoring, which some participants find confusing, particularly the steps of adding terms to both sides. It is clarified that the fraction derived from the proof, known as the mediant, does not always represent the average of the two fractions and can sometimes lead to counterintuitive results, as illustrated by Simpson's paradox. Understanding these algebraic manipulations is essential for grasping the concept of finding fractions between two others.
Taylor_1989
Messages
400
Reaction score
14
I keep getting slightly confused with the algebraic method of finding a fraction between, two other fraction. Here is an example question, I have been doing

Find the fraction between 13/15 and 14/15? I personally convert both to percentages and find the average between the two, the convert back to a fraction. So in this case I did:

13/15 = 0.8666666 = 87%
14/15 = 0.933333 = 93%
87+93 = 180/2= 90
90/100 = 9/10: which I believe is correct

The method I do not understand is the proof behind this method: 13/15+14/15 = 27/30 / 3 top and bottom you get 9/10. But its the proof that confuse me. I will show where I get confused:

I understand this part: a/b < c/d cross multiply ad < bc

This is the part I don't understand: Add ab to both sides ab+ad < ab+bc

why add ab to both sides, where dose this come from?

then factor : a(b+d)<b(a+c)⇒ a/b < a+c/a+b

Then you add cd to both sides, once again why? then you factor out again.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Think of it this way:

You start with 13/15 and 14/15

13/15 is equal to 26/30
and
14/15 is equal to 28/30

This is done by a simple multiplication of two on both the numerator and the denominator.

Looking at your new fractions, it is obvious that 27/30 is in between the two of them, and 27/30 simplifies to 9/10
 
Taylor_1989 said:
This is the part I don't understand: Add ab to both sides ab+ad < ab+bc

why add ab to both sides, where dose this come from?
Because it works. Notice in the next line the factoring worked out such that we can get a/b on its own on the left side.

then factor : a(b+d)<b(a+c)⇒ a/b < a+c/a+b
Just a typo but it should be a/b < (a+c)/(b+d)

Then you add cd to both sides, once again why? then you factor out again.
I guess when you say you add cd to both sides you're talking about

ad&lt;bc

cd+ad&lt;cd+bc

d(a+c)&lt;c(b+d)

\frac{a+c}{b+d}&lt;\frac{c}{d}

Which again work exactly the way we want it to. We've now just shown that \frac{a}{b}&lt;\frac{a+c}{b+d}&lt;\frac{c}{d}

By using algebraic manipulations that were cleverly used to give us the answer we were looking for.
But keep in mind that this value x=\frac{a+c}{b+d} is not always exactly in the middle of a/b and c/d. When b and d are different, it doesn't turn out to be the average of the two fractions.

If you wanted the average of a/b and c/d as your in-between fraction, then you'd have

x=\frac{\frac{a}{b}+\frac{c}{d}}{2}
=\frac{ad+bc}{2bd}

Which is a lot more calculations than the value of x obtained from the proof above.
 
Trivia: the fraction ##\frac{a+c}{b+d}## is called the mediant of ##\frac{a}{b}## and ##\frac{c}{d}##.

Further the mediant does not preserve order. Suppose that ##\frac{a}{b} < \frac{A}{B}## and ##\frac{c}{d} < \frac{C}{D}##, but it is possible to have ##\frac{a+c}{b+d} > \frac{A+C}{B+D}##. This is known as Simpson's paradox.
 
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