MHB Trying to learn the correct notation for fractions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the process of adding mixed fractions, specifically 2 4/7 and 1 3/5. Participants clarify the importance of keeping integers with their corresponding fractions and suggest converting mixed fractions to improper fractions for easier addition. The correct method involves finding a common denominator, which in this case is 35, and then combining the fractions appropriately. The final answer is confirmed as 4 6/35, with advice given on practicing the notation and using LaTeX for clearer mathematical expressions. Overall, the conversation emphasizes understanding the notation and practicing the addition of fractions without calculators.
Casio1
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
2 4/7 + 1 3/5 = 4 6/35 This is easy on a calculator, but I would like to understand how to do it without using calculators.

First I separate the integers from the fractions;

4/7 + 3/5 = Then find the LCM, which I get to be 35

2 4/7 + 1 3/5 = 4/7 + 3/5 = 21/35 2 + 1 20/35 = 3 41/35

Now I know that the answer above can be further canceled and I don't know whether this method is correct or not, but here goes;

3 x 13 + 2 / 35 = 41/35 but then 3 x 35 + 41 / 35 = 4 6/35

Does my work seen OK or am I not getting the notation correct?

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Casio said:
2 4/7 + 1 3/5 = 4 6/35 This is easy on a calculator, but I would like to understand how to do it without using calculators.

First I separate the integers from the fractions;

4/7 + 3/5 = Then find the LCM, which I get to be 35

2 4/7 + 1 3/5 = 4/7 + 3/5 = 21/35 2 + 1 20/35 = 3 41/35

Now I know that the answer above can be further canceled and I don't know whether this method is correct or not, but here goes;

3 x 13 + 2 / 35 = 41/35 but then 3 x 35 + 41 / 35 = 4 6/35

Does my work seen OK or am I not getting the notation correct?

Thanks

You've got your fractions and their integers mixed up: $\frac{21}{35} = \frac{3}{5}$ which goes with 1 instead of 2 so you've swapped them around. The method is largely good although I don't understand a couple of steps that I've put in bold above. You'd end up with $2 \frac{20}{35} + 1\frac{21}{35} = 2 + \frac{20}{35} + 1 + \frac{21}{35}$. Thanks to the order of addition not mattering you still end up with the right answer though.

(with mixed fractions you can split them with addition signs since they're sums: $a + \frac{b}{c} = a\frac{b}{c}$ - if I go off topic for a moment the latter can also mean $ a \times \frac{b}{c}$ which is why it should be avoided where it's not clear)

In this case I you look at the fractional parts as you've done:

For simple fractions I find it easier to convert to improper fractions then combine them. In your case:
$2\frac{4}{7} + 1\frac{3}{5} = \frac{14+4}{7} + \frac{5+3}{5} = \frac{18}{7} + \frac{8}{5}$ and then add them using the LCM and cancel where necessary

$\frac{18}{7} + \frac{8}{5} = \frac{90}{35} + \frac{56}{35} = \frac{146}{35}$. That last fraction is irreducible and I'd be inclined to leave it like that, sure it looks nasty but it's clearer than it's mixed equivalent.

If you do want to make it a mixed fraction then $\frac{146}{35} = \frac{140+6}{35} = \frac{140}{35} + \frac{6}{35} = 4\frac{6}{35}$

Hope that's clear (Tongueout)

edit: drat, too slow
 
SuperSonic4 said:
You've got your fractions and their integers mixed up: $\frac{21}{35} = \frac{3}{5}$ which goes with 1 instead of 2 so you've swapped them around. The method is largely good although I don't understand a couple of steps that I've put in bold above. You'd end up with $2 \frac{20}{35} + 1\frac{21}{35} = 2 + \frac{20}{35} + 1 + \frac{21}{35}$. Thanks to the order of addition not mattering you still end up with the right answer though.

(with mixed fractions you can split them with addition signs since they're sums: $a + \frac{b}{c} = a\frac{b}{c}$ - if I go off topic for a moment the latter can also mean $ a \times \frac{b}{c}$ which is why it should be avoided where it's not clear)

In this case I you look at the fractional parts as you've done:

For simple fractions I find it easier to convert to improper fractions then combine them. In your case:
$2\frac{4}{7} + 1\frac{3}{5} = \frac{14+4}{7} + \frac{5+3}{5} = \frac{18}{7} + \frac{8}{5}$ and then add them using the LCM and cancel where necessary

$\frac{18}{7} + \frac{8}{5} = \frac{90}{35} + \frac{56}{35} = \frac{146}{35}$. That last fraction is irreducible and I'd be inclined to leave it like that, sure it looks nasty but it's clearer than it's mixed equivalent.

If you do want to make it a mixed fraction then $\frac{146}{35} = \frac{140+6}{35} = \frac{140}{35} + \frac{6}{35} = 4\frac{6}{35}$

Hope that's clear (Tongueout)

edit: drat, too slow

I have a lot of practice to do and yes I appreciate there are many routes to the correct answer, and people will find the way that suits them best.

I see what you have said now about me putting the integers with the wrong fractions, I never thought about keeping them with the same fraction:( I just didn't know.

Thanks for your input and help I just have to keep practicing(Smile)

Don't know what happened to CB's reply, he must have removed it for some reason?

Casio(Smile)
 
Casio said:
I have a lot of practice to do and yes I appreciate there are many routes to the correct answer, and people will find the way that suits them best.

I see what you have said now about me putting the integers with the wrong fractions, I never thought about keeping them with the same fraction:( I just didn't know.

No problem. In this case it doesn't matter because you're adding the fractions but it would matter if you wanted to do anything else with them (subtract, multiply or divide) so I find it's good practice to keep them together.

Thanks for your input and help I just have to keep practicing(Smile)

Don't know what happened to CB's reply, he must have removed it for some reason?

Casio(Smile)

If you've any other questions feel free to post them here or in a new topic. It may be easier for you to use LaTeX then typing out SUP and SUB tags for fractions ;). There's a link in my sig
 
SuperSonic4 said:
No problem. In this case it doesn't matter because you're adding the fractions but it would matter if you wanted to do anything else with them (subtract, multiply or divide) so I find it's good practice to keep them together.
If you've any other questions feel free to post them here or in a new topic. It may be easier for you to use LaTeX then typing out SUP and SUB tags for fractions ;). There's a link in my sig

Thanks again, please explain further regards your link in your sig and latex(Smile)
 
Casio said:
Thanks again, please explain further regards your link in your sig and latex(Smile)

He has a link to our http://www.mathhelpboards.com/forums/26-LaTeX-Help. It's a lot easier to use Latex most of the time when writing math equations and makes it a lot easier to read as well. I suggest taking some time to learn the basic syntax. If you have any questions, please ask.
 
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...
Back
Top