Why Multiply Proportional Quantities to Find the Constant?

autodidude
Messages
332
Reaction score
0
If a ∝ b and a ∝ c, why do you multiply b and c together to find the constant?

I also noticed something, but am not sure of the reason why. If you find the constants individually for each expression and combine them all, you get a the the power of the number of expressions

e.g.

a ∝ b
a ∝ c
a ∝ d

So the individual constants would be say, k1, k2 and k3 respectively. If you then multiply it all together

a ∝ (k1b)(k2c)(k3d)

You get a^3

If there're expressions, then a^4 etc. All of the numbers I've tried so far have yielded the result but I'm not sure why that's happening

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your question is very confusing.
 
autodidude said:
If a ∝ b and a ∝ c, why do you multiply b and c together to find the constant?

You don't. If a\propto b and a \propto c, then that tells you that a = k_3 bc, where k3 is some constant of proportionality. This is because:

Given both a = k_1(c)b, where k1(c) is a proportionality factor that you know depends on c, and a = k_2(b)c, where k2(b) is a proportionality factor that depends on b, you can divide the two equations to get

1 = \frac{k_1(c)b}{k_2(b)c},

or

\frac{k_1(c)}{c} = \frac{k_2(b)}{b}.

However, by assumption k1 depends only on c and k2 depends only on b, so the only way this relation can hold is if both sides are equal to the same constant, say k3. It follows then that a = k_3 bc.

I also noticed something, but am not sure of the reason why. If you find the constants individually for each expression and combine them all, you get a the the power of the number of expressions

e.g.

a ∝ b
a ∝ c
a ∝ d

So the individual constants would be say, k1, k2 and k3 respectively. If you then multiply it all together

a ∝ (k1b)(k2c)(k3d)

You get a^3

If there're expressions, then a^4 etc. All of the numbers I've tried so far have yielded the result but I'm not sure why that's happening

Thanks

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. If a is proportional to all those variables, then a = k_4bcd, by similar logic to what I did above. I'm not sure where these powers of a comes from.
 
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top