Say we are dividing out the common factors in
Is an answer ofjust as valid and correct as
?
Printable View
Say we are dividing out the common factors in
Is an answer ofjust as valid and correct as
?
Hello, Euclid Alexandria!
Yes, it is . . . but a coefficient ofQuote:
Say we are dividing out the common factors in
Is an answer ofjust as valid and correct as
?
is usually omitted.
Similarly: .is equal to
,
. . but a denominator ofis usually omitted.
I've had some teachers that marked me down for doing something like that :eek: so if you're giving the answers to a test, it is better to get rid of the 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Euclid Alexandria
Thanks guys, I'll get in the habit of omitting the 1 just in case.
Oh hey look, I just became a senior member.
That means you're old now. You're entitled to some discounts now. You can be given incomplete answers now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Euclid Alexandria
I'm glad to hearQuote:
Originally Posted by ticbol
of that!
When we write a fraction in the simplest form, we cancel out what is common in the numerator and denominator. This is what a teacher tells us in a class. After this the practice problem was given:
Simplify
One student cancelled out the(common in numerator and denominator) and got the answer
, which was suprisingly the right answer. How many more fractions are there like this?
KeepSmiling
Malay
Hello, Malay!
Besides, we have:
. .
. .
. .
Interesting...are these all the two-digit fractions that are like this? Did you know this intuitively or did you use a method to figure it out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soroban
Hello, Euclid Alexandria!
Quote:
Are these all the two-digit fractions that are like this?
Did you know this intuitively or did you use a method to figure it out?
I had seen these listed a book many years ago.
But you can derive your own formula for finding these "jokes".
We want digitsso that: .
Solve for
Now try all digits forand
which make
a digit.
You'll find that the list I gave is complete.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One more joke:
Reduce: .
Answer: .
I am having difficulty following the example and reproducing the results. Here are the steps I took to reproduce the example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soroban
Let a = 1, b = 6, and c = 4.
Hello, Euclid Alexandria!
A few really gruesome errors . . .
Can you possibly make any more mistakes?Quote:
I am having difficulty following the example and reproducing the results. . . . No wonder!
Here are the steps I took to reproduce the example:
Let a = 1, b = 6, and c = 4.
. . . ↑ . ↑? . .↑?
.ten? . ↑ . b = 6
. . . . a = 1
. 10·1·6 = 60
. . . ↓?
. . . ↑?
. 10·6 + 4 = 64
. What is this? . 16 = 2·2·2·2
. . .↓ . ↓ . ↓
![]()
It's mathematically incorrect, but I thought she had done it on purpose. If so, I found it rather humerous. Here's why:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soroban
Well, 10 x 1 = 10 and thus 10 x 1 x 6 = 10 x 6 = 1(0+6)=16.
6 + 4 = 10 so 10 * 6 + 4 = 10 * 10 = (1+1)0 = 20.
Now, 16 = 1 (6) = 1 * (2 * 3)
20 = 5 * 2 * 2
All of the Math mistakes are common (at least I've seen alot of them) mistakes similar to the cancelling joke that started this whole conversation.
(At least I HOPE she was making a joke out of it!!)
-Dan
Yes, it is possible to make more mistakes in this instance. :eek:
:) Thoughtful pause :)
Here we are attempting to reproduceas before, except with a newly revised method.
Let a = 1, b = 6, and c = 4
. . ↑ .. ↑ ...↑
.nine! ↑ . b = 6
. . . . a = 1
Here's another try at using that formula (if that's the correct terminology) to reproduce
Let a = 1, b = 6, and c = 4
(Now it appears that a = 16 and c = 64)