I Proving that fractions are the same as division

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between fractions and division through the multiplicative inverse axiom, stating that multiplying by the inverse of a number is equivalent to division. It questions why mathematicians define the multiplicative inverse of a number x as the fraction 1/x. The conversation highlights that introducing rational numbers allows for solving equations like a × c = b for integers a and b. The definition of rational numbers as quotients of integers is established, leading to the conclusion that c = b/a can be expressed as c = a^-1 when b equals 1. The thread also mentions the concept of embedding integral domains into fields of fractions, emphasizing the broader mathematical context.
logicgate
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
I'm trying to prove that fractions are the same as division using the axiom of multiplicative inverse.
So using the multiplicative inverse axiom we have :
1) x . x^-1 = 1
2) x . (1/x) = 1
I have no idea why do mathematicians define the multiplicative inverse of a number x to be the "fraction" 1/x.
But I know for sure that multiplying any number a for example by the multiplicative inverse of x is the same as "a divided by x"
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
logicgate said:
TL;DR Summary: I'm trying to prove that fractions are the same as division using the axiom of multiplicative inverse.

So using the multiplicative inverse axiom we have :
1) x . x^-1 = 1
2) x . (1/x) = 1
I have no idea why do mathematicians define the multiplicative inverse of a number x to be the "fraction" 1/x.
But I know for sure that multiplying any number a for example by the multiplicative inverse of x is the same as "a divided by x"
If we start with the integers, and assume we can add and multiple them, we can ask:

Given two integers ##a## and ##b##, is there a number ##c## such that ##a \times c = b##?

Sometimes there is a suitable integer and sometimes there isn't. If we want that equation to be solvable for all non-zero ##a##, then we have to introduce some new numbers that aren't integers. So, by definition, we say:

##c \equiv \frac b a## is the number such that ##a \times c = b##.

And that effectively defines the rational numbers, as quotients of integers.

Then we have a special case where ##b = 1##, hence ##c = \frac 1 a## and ##c \times a = 1##. In this case, we call ##c## the multiplicative inverse of ##a## and we also write ##c = a^{-1}##.

That leads more generally to the equation: ##\frac b a = ba^{-1}##.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and Lnewqban
This may be of interest:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_fractions

Every integral domain, i.e., a ring R in which a.b=0 implies a=0 or b=0, may be embedded in a field, called the Field of Fractions, through a specific process , described in the link.In your case, the Integral Domain of the Integers, can be embeded in the field of Rationals. In this case, if r is an element of said integral domain, the element (1/r) is used to denote it's multiplicative inverse in the associated field of fractions. Notice other examples like that of the Integral Domain ##\{ a+ib: a,b \in \mathbb Z \}##, has ##\{c+id: c,d \in \mathbb Q \}## as its field of fractions.
Maybe @fresh_42 can elaborate.
 
Last edited:
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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...
Back
Top