Associated Topics || Dr. Math Home || Search Dr. Math

### Thinking about the Mediant of Two Fractions

```Date: 12/10/2009 at 23:24:08
From: Teresa
Subject: new fraction formula

Students were trying to find a fraction between two given fractions
with 1 as the numerators (such as 1/2 and 1/3).  After working on
several problems, one person noticed that when given 1/a and 1/b, the
fraction 2/(a+b) always seems to be in between 1/a and 1/b.  Is this
a new fraction rule, or has this been discovered and proved before?

I created the following "proof" but would like it to be checked,
since it has been many years since I've tried to prove a new idea:

If a and b are positive integers and a > b, then would

1/a           <     2/(a+b)     <       1/b?

[b(a+b)]/[ab(a+b)] < 2ab / [ab(a+b)] < [a(a+b)]/[ab(a+b)],
b(a+b) <      2ab        < a(a+b)
b(a+b) < 2ab   and   2ab < a(a+b)
a+b < 2a    and    2b < a+b
b < a     and     b < a,

so it is true?

```

```
Date: 12/11/2009 at 10:46:42
From: Doctor Peterson
Subject: Re: new fraction formula

Hi, Teresa.

Yes, this is true.  In fact, more generally, given ANY two fractions
a/b and c/d (with a, b, c, and d positive numbers), the fraction
(a+c)/(b+d), sometimes called the mediant, is between a/b and c/d.

Your proof contains all the right elements, but just needs to be
rearranged or explained more fully.  What you've done is to show that
IF 2/(a+b) is between 1/a and 1/b, THEN b < a.  You want to show the
converse of this.  Since all the statements are equivalent to one
another, you could essentially just reverse the order of your
statements and it constitutes the proof you want.  It would read a
little oddly that way, though, so it needs to be explained carefully.

Let's see if I can write a cleaner version of your proof for the
general case.

Given positive integers a, b, c, and d, such that a/b < c/d, we want
to prove that a/b < (a+c)/(b+d) < c/d.

The given condition, that a/b < c/d, is equivalent to

-- < --, and therefore to ad < bc
bd   bd

What we want to show, writing all the fractions with a common
denominator, is

------- < ------- < -------
bd(b+d)   bd(b+d)   bd(b+d)

This is equivalent to showing that the numerators fall in the same
order:

ad(b+d) < bd(a+c) < bc(b+d)

or

abd + ad^2 < abd + bcd < b^2c + bcd

We will take this in two parts:

abd + ad^2 < abd + bcd, and abd + bcd < b^2c + bcd

The first desired inequality is true because

abd + ad^2 < abd + bcd

The second is true because

abd < b^2c
abd + bcd < b^2c + bcd

We're done.  (This could be written without working backward from the
goal, but it would be very unclear why we did what we did.)

There is also an interesting visual "proof" of this.  Interpret the
fractions as slopes, and consider any two points A (b,a) and D (d,c)
in the first quadrant:

^
|
a+c|                  ____---C
|          ____----    . /
c|      B---         .   /
|     /          .     /
|    /        .       /
|   /      .         /
|  /    .           /
a| /  .      ____---A
|/. ____----
O----------------------------->
d           b     b+d

Here the slope of OA, a/b, is less than the slope of OB, c/d. When
we add the two vectors A and B (that is, make a parallelogram OACB
so that AC and OB have the same slope and length), C has coordinates
(b+d, a+c), so that the slope of the diagonal OC is (a+c)/(b+d).
Clearly this diagonal goes through the middle of the parallelogram,
so that its slope is between those of OA and OB.

For more on this, including a more subtle proof, see:

Wikipedia: Mediant (Mathematics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediant_(mathematics)

If you have any further questions, feel free to write back.

- Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/

```

```

Date: 12/11/2009 at 15:37:03
From: Teresa
Subject: Thank you (new fraction formula)

Thank you so much!  I am going to share your answer with the person
who noticed the rule (who usually doesn't feel very good at math) and
tell him that he can name it.  That way we can always call it by his
name in our class!  Thanks again!
Teresa
```

```
Date: 12/11/2009 at 20:58:54
From: Doctor Peterson
Subject: Re: Thank you (new fraction formula)

Hi, Teresa.

I just realized that, although I focused on a more general rule that I
find interesting, your student's rule can be explained much more
simply, which may even be what the student had in mind.

We're looking at two unit fractions (fractions with numerator 1), and
trying to find a fraction that is between them.  We know that if a >
b, then 1/a < 1/b.  If we pick any number c BETWEEN a and b, then

1/a < 1/c < 1/b

In particular, if c is the average (mean) of a and b, this will be
true.  For example, if a is 5 and b is 3, the average, c, is 4, and we
know that

1/5 < 1/4 < 1/3

But in the case you were looking at, 1/2 and 1/3, there is no WHOLE
number between 2 and 3.  Their average is (2+3)/2 = 5/2. If we ignore
the fact that this is not whole and just take its reciprocal (1/c), we
get the fraction 2/5. The reasoning that said that 1/c is between the
others is still valid, so we do know that

1/3 < 2/5 < 1/2

as desired.

The general rule is that we can take c = (a+b)/2 and use its
reciprocal, 2/(a+b):

1/a < 2/(a+b) < 1/b

So this is a very reasonable choice to have made, and its truth
follows from two elementary facts, namely that the average is between
the two numbers, and that increasing the denominator decreases the
fraction.

- Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
```
Associated Topics:
High School Basic Algebra
Middle School Algebra
Middle School Fractions

Search the Dr. Math Library:

 Find items containing (put spaces between keywords):   Click only once for faster results: [ Choose "whole words" when searching for a word like age.] all keywords, in any order at least one, that exact phrase parts of words whole words

Submit your own question to Dr. Math
Math Forum Home || Math Library || Quick Reference || Math Forum Search