Using divide as a 'sign' for a number

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Twinbee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sign
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the idea of using the divide symbol (/) as an intrinsic operator for numbers, similar to how the minus sign functions for negative numbers. Participants explore the implications of this concept in mathematical notation and its potential standardization.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests using the divide symbol as a shorthand for the reciprocal of a number, proposing that /5 could represent 1/5.
  • Another participant points out that exponential notation (e.g., 1/5 = 5-1) is commonly used instead of the proposed divide notation.
  • A later reply humorously references programming practices, indicating that the divide notation might be confusing in certain contexts.
  • One participant argues that their idea of using the divide symbol is more consistent with the negative sign and could simplify expressions in coding.
  • Another participant expresses satisfaction with existing notation for reciprocals and questions the need for additional representations.
  • One participant mentions that the divide operation is standard in certain mathematical contexts, but distinguishes it from being an inverse operation like multiplication.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of support and skepticism regarding the proposed use of the divide symbol as an intrinsic operator. There is no consensus on the necessity or practicality of standardizing this notation in mathematics.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the existing methods for representing reciprocals and the potential for confusion with the proposed notation. The discussion reflects varying perspectives on mathematical notation and its implications in both theoretical and applied contexts.

Twinbee
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
A negative number has the minus sign as its own intrinsic operator. Has anyone thought of using the divide symbol in a similar way, and has there been any attempt to standardize this throughout math?

For example (assuming / is the divide symbol):
/5 = reciprocal of 5 = 1/5 = 0.2.

It saves having to always use the "1 divided by" bit in 1/x.

One can then even use two divides to cancel each other out. Example: //5 = 5 (just like --5 = 5)

Good idea?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
People use an exponential notation instead:

1/5 = 5-1

(5-1)-1 = 5

Edit: By the way, you typically have to write -(-5). If you write --5, most people won't know what you're talking about.
 
cepheid said:
People use an exponential notation instead:

1/5 = 5-1

(5-1)-1 = 5

Edit: By the way, you typically have to write -(-5). If you write --5, most people won't know what you're talking about.
Unless you're writing bad C code that is attempting to predecrement a constant:biggrin:
 
Mark44 said:
Unless you're writing bad C code that is attempting to predecrement a constant:biggrin:

LOL, that thought totally occurred to me as well. :wink:
 
Yes.

I still think my idea is more consistent with the idea of a negative sign (I code in C quite a bit too, so maybe my inspiration stems from there, since encoding the division sign in a number would be quite elegant in some cases).

It also means you can have stuff like:

/5 *10 = 2
10 /5 = 2 (or maybe 10*/5 = 2, and no that isn't a C comment closing tag).

So I've swapped the 'numbers' around, and achieved the same result, meaning we have commutativity just like with multiplication. We can even treat *10 = 10 (just like +10 = 10). Has nobody really thought of this crap before?
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty content with the way it is at the moment. We already have various ways to represent reciprocals, that being [tex]\frac{1}{x}[/tex] and [tex]x^{-1}[/tex]. As for the minus operator, we don't really have many other ways to express it, so we need at least 1 way to show the negative of a number. We don't need more ways to express what we already have for reciprocals though.

As for ease of typing, [tex]x^{-1}[/tex] is pretty easy isn't it?

I wouldn't be surprised if it were implemented in some coding language, but in terms of making it standardized in mathematics, nah don't need it eh
 
I think it's standard for the arithmetic of a wheel. But there, it's an operation in its own right (a total one, in fact) rather than being an inverse to multiplication or similar kind of thing.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K