The importance of equivalent fractions

H. Wu The discussion of all the concepts in this handout is entirely consistent with the CCSSM (Common Core State Standards in Mathematics). The basic fact about equivalent fractions is easy to state: Theorem on equivalent fractions. Given any fractions m n and a nonzero whole number c, then m cm = n cn However, current school textbooks give the impression that this fact is important mainly because it is useful for simplifying 2 14 72 fractions, e.g., 14 21 = 3 because 21 = 73 . We are going to show that, on the contrary, this theorem on equivalent fractions accounts for almost every important property of fractions: how to compare fractions and decimals, why zeros at the right of a decimal can be deleted, how to add and multiply fractions (and, by implication, how to subtract and divide fractions), etc.
1

Consider rst the reason behind the theorem. Is the following proof correct? m m m c cm = 1 = = n n n c cn (Why is
m n

c c =

cm c n ?)

Identifying fractions as certain points on the number line, the following picture gives an almost complete proof of the fact that 4 54 = . 3 53 0 1
4 3

The proof in general of the theorem, using the number line, remains the same. The main message of this theorem is the following (FFFP = Fundamental Fact of Fraction Pairs): FFFP: Any two fractions (i.e., two points on the number line) may be represented by fraction symbols with the same denominator. For example, if the given fractions are represented by the sym3 bols 4 9 and 8 , then they may be represented by two fraction
2

symbol with the same denominator 72: 4 32 84 3 27 93 = = and = = 9 72 89 8 72 98 Usually, we confuse a fraction symbol with the fraction it represents (i.e., the point on the number line) and express FFFP less precisely as follows: Any two fractions may be considered as fractions with the same denominator. This is the language that is normally used in discussions of fractions, and we will do likewise below. Comparing fractions. The theorem says two fractions of cm the form m n and cn are equal (where m, n, c are whole numbers and c, n = 0). However, there are equal fractions which do not 10 look like that, e.g. 14 21 = 15 , because 10 5 2 2 14 7 2 2 = = and = = 21 7 3 3 15 5 3 3 How can we tell in general whether two given fractions are equal? Another question: What does it mean to say a fraction m n k m k is bigger than another fraction ? (In symbols: < n .) By denition, it means: on the number line, m n is to the right of k . (Textbooks dont give any denition.)
k m n 3

If two fractions have the same denominator, it is easy to tell 7 5 which is bigger. For example, intuitively, 17 < 17 , and this is conrmed by the denition because, in the sequence of 17ths, the 7th point on the sequence is to the right of the 5th point in the same sequence. But what if their denominators are not equal? The comprehensive answer to these questions comes in two parts (CMA = Cross-Multiplication Algorithm). CMA I. Two fractions if, m = nk .
m n

and

are equal if, and only

CMA II. Given two fractions if, and only if, m < nk .

m n

and k . Then

m n

<

The reason for both CMA I and CMA II is that, by the theorem on equivalent fractions, m k nk m = and = . n n n The formal poofs of CMA I and CMA II follow quite simply. 3 For example, 8 <4 9 because 3 9 < 8 4. Or more directly (by FFFP, see above): 3 27 32 4 = < = 8 72 72 9 If we can compare two fractions, then we can compare two decimals. Recall the correct denition of a decimal: a decimal is a fraction whose denominator is a power of 10.
4

Usually, decimals are written in the special notation introduced by the German Jesuit astronomer C. Clavius (1538-1612): 235 100 57 10000 235 is written as 2.35; 102 57 = 4 is written as 0.0057, etc. 10 =

The denition of a decimal that is commonly in use hides the fact that a decimal is a fraction. For example, the usual denition of 2.35 is that it is 2 and 3 tenths and 5 hundredths. What is hidden in this denition is the fact that, when stripped of the verbal camouage, 2.35 is by denition the following sum of fractions, 3 5 + . 2+ 10 100 Therefore, the attempt by most textbooks to present decimals as numbers separate from fractions is illegitimate. In particular, the dishonesty of suppressing the fact that this denition can only be presented after the addition of fractions has been dened may be responsible for the massive nonlearning in the subject of decimals. The moral is: No matter how you cut it, you cannot discuss decimal as a dierent kind of number separate from fractions. Decimals should be dened as a special kind of fractions. (A key feature of the CCSSM is to clearly identify a decimal as a fraction whose denominator is a power of 10. See standards 4.NF 57 and 5.NBT 2.)
5

Why can zeros at the right of a decimal be deleted? For example, why is 0.87 = 0.8700? Answer: By equivalent fractions, 87 87 102 0.87 = = 102 102 102 8700 = 0.8700 = 10000 We can now compare decimals: Which is bigger, 0.01 or 0.0098? First answer: Use the preceding fact: 100 98 < = 0.0100 = 0.01 10000 10000 Second answer: Use equivalent fractions directly: 0.0098 = 0.0098 = 98 10000 100 1 100 1 = = 0.01 = 100 100 100 10000

So 0.0098 < 0.01. Fraction addition. Recall, the sum of two fractions 2 7 + 5 is the fraction corresponding to the length of such as 3 2 and a segment the concatenation of a segment of length 3 of length 7 5.
2 3 7 5

For example, 3 1 1 1 = + + 5 5 5 5 1 because 3 5 is the total length of 3 copies of 5 (in self-explanatory language): 0
1 5 1 5 1 5

3 5

In like manner, 7 4 7+4 + = 5 5 5 because,

7 4

1 1 7 4 1 1 + = + + + + + 5 5 5 5 5 5
7+4

= In general,

7+4 1 + 1 + + 1 = 5 5

if we add fractions with the same denominator, we get a fraction with the same denominator whose numerator is the sum of the numerators. Using equivalent fractions, we can add any two fractions, as 7 follows. Let us take the previous addition: 2 3 + 5 . Since we
7

already know how to add two fractions with the same denomi7 nator, we use FFFP to change 2 and 3 5 to two fractions with 7 2 and 5 are equal, the same denominator. We recognize that 3 10 respectively, to 15 and 21 15 , because 2 52 10 7 37 21 = = and = = . 3 53 15 5 35 15
2 7 Therefore, by denition, the sum 3 +5 is the total length of 1 10 + 21 copies of 15 . In symbolic expressions, this becomes

2 7 10 21 10 + 21 31 + = + = = . 3 5 15 15 15 15
31 2 +7 Note that getting the sum, 3 5 = 15 is conceptually no dierent from the whole number addition of putting together 1 10 and 21 pieces of 15 s. In general, if m, n, k , are whole numbers, then the same reasoning yields

m k m nk m + nk + = + = n n n n (the fact that = 0 and n = 0 being always understood.)

2 Multiplying fractions. We dene 3 of 5 to mean, 4 precisely, 2 copies of a part when [0, 5 4 ] is partitioned into 3 equal parts. This is the intuitive meaning of two-thirds of 5 4 -pound of cheese. Still on the intuitive level, since n 6 (for a whole number 5 n) is 6 + 6 + 6 (n times) by denition, we expect n 4 to 8

mean:

5 5 5 + + + 4 4 4
n

5 5 On the other hand, 1 should mean a third of 3 4 4 , because 1 that is more or less what adding 5 4 to itself 3 times would mean. Therefore if we believe

2 5 = 2 3 4

1 5 , 3 4

5 5 then 2 3 4 should mean 2 copies of a part when 4 is divided 5 into 3 equal parts, i.e., 2 3 of 4 in the above sense. This leads us to the formal denition: 5 Denition. 2 5 is 2 3 of 4 , i.e., 2 copies of a part when 3 4 the segment [0, 5 4 ] is partitioned into 3 equal parts.

of k means, precisely, m copies of a part (In general, m n when [0, k ] is partitioned into n equal parts. Then, by denik k is m tion, m n of .) n To compute
2 3

5 4 , it suces to nd out the length of one

1 3

part when [0, 5 4 ] is divided into 3 equal parts, i.e., it suces to compute 5 4.

Once that is done, we simply nd the length of 2 parts by addition.

9

9 We begin with an easier problem: compute 1 3 4 . On the 9 number line, 4 is the concatenation of 9 equal segments, each being of length 1 4. It is easy to divide 9 segments of equal length (= 1 4 ) into 3 parts of equal length by taking each part to consist of three segments.

3 4

6 4

9 4

9 So if 4 is divided into three parts of equal length, the length of one part is clearly 3 4 , i.e.,

1 9 3 = 3 4 4 5 Now we want to compute 1 3 4 , but 3 no longer divides the numerator 5 of 5 4 evenly. How then to divide 5 segments of 1 equal length (= 4 ) into 3 parts of equal length? We make use of equivalent fractions to induce the numerator 5 to become divisible by 3: of 4 5 35 = , 4 34 Then, 1 5 1 35 = . 3 4 3 34 1 We can divide 15 segments of equal length (= 3 4 ) into 3 parts of equal length by taking each part to consist of ve of these segments.
10

0 Therefore,
1 3

5 12

10 12

15 12

5 The equality means if we divide [0, 4 ] into 3 2 5 5 equal parts, then the length of one part is 3 4 . Since 3 4 is 5 the length of 2 concatenated parts when [0, 4 ] is divided into 3 equal parts, we see that

5 15 4 = 34 . 1 5 5 3 4 = 34

5 5 25 2 5 = + = 3 4 34 34 34 Thus 25 2 5 = 3 4 34

The same reasoning as above leads to the general fact that, for any two fractions k and m n, k m km = n n

We call this the Product Formula. The Product Formula shows that fraction multiplication is commutative, associative, and distributive in general. So these properties can also be said to be consequences of the theorem on equivalent fractions.

11

A rst consequence of the Product Formula is the cancellation phenomenon, e.g., 85 7 9 5 7 = 9 13 8 11 13 11 i.e., we cancelled the 8 in top and bottom, and cancelled the 9 in top and bottom. We could do that because, by the Product Formula and the theorem on equivalent fractions, we have: 79 (8 9) (5 7) 57 85 = = 9 13 8 11 (8 9) (13 11) 13 11
7 57 5 11 is also equal to 13 Obviously 13 11 . The reasoning is applicable to the cancellation phenomenon in general.

References [1] H. Wu, (2011). Understanding Numbers in Elementary School Mathematics. Providence, RI. American Mathematical Society. [2] H. Wu, (2011). Teaching Fractions According to the Common Core Standards. http://math.berkeley.edu/wu/CCSS-Fractions.pdf.

12