MHB Simplify Fraction: 196707/250971

In summary, the Euclidean Algorithm gives us that the greatest common denominator is 6783. Therefore the fraction simplifies to \frac{29}{37}.
  • #1
Petrus
702
0
Hello MHB,
Simplify as far as possible without any calculator \(\displaystyle \frac{196707}{250971}\)
Hint:
Euclidean Algorithm

Regards,
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Petrus said:
Hello MHB,
Simplify as far as possible without any calculator \(\displaystyle \frac{196707}{250971}\)
Hint:
Euclidean Algorithm

Regards,

The Euclidean Algorithm gives us that the greatest common denominator is 6783.
Therefore the fraction simplifies to \(\displaystyle \frac{29}{37}\).
 
  • #3
I like Serena said:
The Euclidean Algorithm gives us that the greatest common denominator is 6783.
Therefore the fraction simplifies to \(\displaystyle \frac{29}{37}\).
Hello I like Serena,
Thanks for joining the 'challange question'(Cool)! You correctly calculated gcd and simplify! I totaly forgot about this one but I Will post full solution when I got time!:)

Regards
\(\displaystyle |\pi\rangle\)
 
  • #4
Here is a way to proceed.

The sum of the digits of both numbers is a multiple of 3 so both numbers are divisible by 3. Divide them both by 3

[tex] \frac{65569}{83657} [/tex]

Clearly neither divisible by 5

break this number up like this 65569 = 065 569 , into groups of 3 digits each , now subtract, 569 - 65 = 504

This gives us at once a divisibility test for 7, 11, and 13

if 504 is divisible by 7, so is 65569

if 504 is divisible by 11 so is 65569

if 504 is divisible by 13 so is 65569

we see 7 divides 504 but 11 and 13 do not

Do the same for 83657 = 083 657 , subtract 657 - 83 = 574

It's easy to see 574 is divisible by 7 since previously 504 was divisible by 7 and this is 70 more than that. No need to test for 11 and 13 since those factors won't cancel if they are there (they are not)

Divide them both by 7.

[tex] \frac{9367}{11951} [/tex]

perform previous procedure again

367 - 9 = 358 not divisible by 7.

Note* Divisibility test for 3 did not have to be done TWICE because sum of digits was NOT 9 but in general you have to repeat the test until divisibility posibility is exhausted.

For divisibility by 17 , cut off the last digit of 9367 , multiply it by 5 , then subtract that from the truncated number.

936 - 35 = 901

If 901 is divisible by 17 then so is 9367 , it is.

Do the same for 11951,

1195 - 5 = 1190

If 1190 is divisible by 17 , then so is 11951 , it is.

Divide them both by 17

[tex] \frac{551}{703} [/tex]

apply divisibility test again for 17

55 - 5 = 50

not divisible by 17 so neither is 551

For divisibility by 19 , cut off the last digit of 551 , multiply it by 2, add that to the truncated number. 55 + 2 = 57

If 57 is ... well you get the idea , it is

Do the same for 703

70 + 6 = 76 is divisible by 19

Divide them both by 19

[tex] \frac{29}{37} [/tex]

It's quite obvious now you can stop.

:)
 
  • #5
agentmulder said:
Here is a way to proceed.

The sum of the digits of both numbers is a multiple of 3 so both numbers are divisible by 3. Divide them both by 3

[tex] \frac{65569}{83657} [/tex]

Clearly neither divisible by 5

break this number up like this 65569 = 065 569 , into groups of 3 digits each , now subtract, 569 - 65 = 504

This gives us at once a divisibility test for 7, 11, and 13

if 504 is divisible by 7, so is 65569

if 504 is divisible by 11 so is 65569

if 504 is divisible by 13 so is 65569

we see 7 divides 504 but 11 and 13 do not

Do the same for 83657 = 083 657 , subtract 657 - 83 = 574

It's easy to see 574 is divisible by 7 since previously 504 was divisible by 7 and this is 70 more than that. No need to test for 11 and 13 since those factors won't cancel if they are there (they are not)

Divide them both by 7.

[tex] \frac{9367}{11951} [/tex]

perform previous procedure again

367 - 9 = 358 not divisible by 7.

Note* Divisibility test for 3 did not have to be done TWICE because sum of digits was NOT 9 but in general you have to repeat the test until divisibility posibility is exhausted.

For divisibility by 17 , cut off the last digit of 9367 , multiply it by 5 , then subtract that from the truncated number.

936 - 35 = 901

If 901 is divisible by 17 then so is 9367 , it is.

Do the same for 11951,

1195 - 5 = 1190

If 1190 is divisible by 17 , then so is 11951 , it is.

Divide them both by 17

[tex] \frac{551}{703} [/tex]

apply divisibility test again for 17

55 - 5 = 50

not divisible by 17 so neither is 551

For divisibility by 19 , cut off the last digit of 551 , multiply it by 2, add that to the truncated number. 55 + 2 = 57

If 57 is ... well you get the idea , it is

Do the same for 703

70 + 6 = 76 is divisible by 19

Divide them both by 19

[tex] \frac{29}{37} [/tex]

It's quite obvious now you can stop.

:)
Hello agentmulder,
Well done and thanks for my 'challange question'(Cool)! I did almost forgot about this method!

Regards,
\(\displaystyle |\pi\rangle\)
 

FAQ: MHB Simplify Fraction: 196707/250971

What is MHB Simplify Fraction?

MHB Simplify Fraction is a mathematical process used to reduce a fraction to its simplest form by dividing the numerator and denominator by their greatest common factor.

How do I simplify a fraction using MHB Simplify Fraction?

To simplify a fraction using MHB Simplify Fraction, first find the greatest common factor of the numerator and denominator. Then, divide both the numerator and denominator by this factor. The resulting fraction will be in its simplest form.

Why is it important to simplify fractions?

Simplifying fractions makes it easier to compare and perform operations with fractions. It also helps in understanding the relationship between different fractions and their equivalent forms.

Can any fraction be simplified using MHB Simplify Fraction?

Yes, any fraction can be simplified using MHB Simplify Fraction. However, if the numerator and denominator do not have a common factor, then the fraction is already in its simplest form.

How do I know if a fraction is already in its simplest form?

If the numerator and denominator do not have a common factor, then the fraction is already in its simplest form. Also, if the fraction cannot be reduced any further, then it is already in its simplest form.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top