Consider the following division, \[\frac{x+1}{2x+2}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}(2x+2)}{2x+2}=\frac{1}{2}\] So, dividing \(x+1\) by \(2x+2\) leaves no remainder. [Of course, \(x\) cannot be \(-1\) here.]

Now, substituting \(x=4\) in the expressions gives us two integers 5 and 10. But, \[5=0 \times 10 +5\] We're getting 5 as a remainder now!

Why are these two ways of defining remainders not congruent?

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestEven though the same word "remainder" is used, you have to bear in mind what the definition in each of these contexts are.

Log in to reply

@Brian Charlesworth Would you help me with this?

Log in to reply

With proper fractions, (i.e., where the numerator is strictly less than the denominator), the remainder is just the numerator itself, so in your general case,

\(x + 1 = 0 \times (2x + 2) + (x + 1)\),

i.e, \(x + 1\) divided by \(2x + 1\) is \(0\) with remainder \(x + 1\). Defined this way, a proper fraction does have a remainder, which avoids the contradiction you mention.

Log in to reply

I understand your definition. But, is it the proper one? What I've found in the Wikipedia is the following.

"Given two polynomials f(x) (the dividend) and g(x) (the divisor), asserts the existence and the uniqueness of a quotient q(x) and a remainder r(x) such that \[f(x)=q(x)g(x)+r(x) ; and, r(x)=0 ,or, deg(r) < deg(g)\]"

But, \(2x+2\) and \(x+1\) both are first-degree polynomials!

Again, I solved some problems where I had to resort to the algebraic manipulation I mentioned in this note.

In an algebra problem, I had to do the following. \[R(x)=x^5+\frac{1}{2}x^3+x^2-\frac{1}{2}x+\frac{5}{2}\] \[R(x)=(x^2-\frac{1}{2})(x^3+x+1)+3\] \[R(x)=x^2(x^3+x+1)-\frac{1}{2}(x^3+x+1)+3\] Then, I had to say \(R(x)\) divided by \(x^3+x+1\) leaves a remainder of 3.

So, basically we cannot incorporate your definition, can we?

Log in to reply

In your example where you substituted \(x = 4\), this would translate to \(5 = \dfrac{1}{2} \times 10 + 0\), but this is not how we normally deal with remainders over the integers, so I think this is the source of the "incongruence" you mention in your question.

(If \(deg(f) \lt deg(g)\) then we would necessarily have \(q(x) = 0\) and \(r(x) = f(x)\), in which case the Wikipedia definition would be satisfied.)

Log in to reply

I also forgot to mention one thing about your first comment. You said, "where the numerator is strictly less than the denominator". But, notice that \(x+1\) is strictly greater than \(2x+2\) \(\forall x < -1\).

Log in to reply

Dear sir, can you please help https://brilliant.org/discussions/thread/can-this-limit-be-cancelled/?ref_id=1368476

Thank You!

Log in to reply