Talk:Continued fraction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Continued fraction article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Mathematics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating:	Start Class	High Priority	Field: Analysis
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments. Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article.

Archives

1

Contents 1 citation needed 2 Rational induction 3 representation of 1 4 Theorem 2 5 infinite continued fraction

[edit] citation needed

"One theorem states that any real number k can be approximated by rational m/n " .. I'd like to see a reference for this, and the name of the theorem cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.209.46 (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's Theorem 193 in Hardy & Wright (5th ed.) - I've added a reference in the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rational induction

As an additional point of interest, the fact that all rational numbers can be represented as a finite continued fraction allows mathematical induction to be extended to the positive rationals. This can be done by proving:

1. n = 1 is true
2. If n = k is true, then n = k + 1 is true
3. If n = k is true, then n = 1 / k is true

Using these operations, it is possible to create all finite continued fractions and hence all rational numbers. Perhaps this deserves a mention on either this page or the page on induction?

--124.189.100.175 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That can be done without continued fractions. E.g., consider a grid of points in a coordinate system, e.g. {..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...} X {1, 2, 3, ...}. Define a sequence going through all these points, beginning at (0, 1), spiralling or zigzagging outwards as you please. Let each point (p, q) represent the fraction p/q, and skip it if it is not to lowest terms. Of course, this skipping in some contexts may makes this sequence inferior to the one suggested by 124.189.100.175, so I guess what I'm saying is, if we include 124.189.100.175's sequence in the article, we should indicate what it might be good for.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] representation of 1

Every finite continued fraction represents a rational number, and every rational number (except 1) can be represented in precisely two different ways as a finite continued fraction.

Why except 1? 1 can also be represented in two different ways : 1 = [1] = [0;1]. Indeed any integer n = [n] = [n-1;1].--143.248.181.36 (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theorem 2

Is Theorem 2 really a Theorem? All it is, is the definition of h and k, which is a given. TechnoFaye Kane 03:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As the article stands, h_n and k_n are defined at the beginning of the Some useful theorems section as integer sequences with recurrence relations that use the a_n as parameters. So, yes, it is then necessary to prove that h_n/k_n is the n^th convergent of the continued fraction. An alternative approach is to reverse the order, defining h_n and k_n as the numerator and denominator of the n^th convergent, and then showing that h_n and k_n satisfy the recurrence relations. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!! TechnoFaye Kane 20:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] infinite continued fraction

Let's discuss about the formula of this picture:

from infinite continued fraction of continued fraction. Continued_fraction

please compare with this.

and here is my proof to show that conflicts.

Answer:Covergents:

--Meavel (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the formulae are only seemingly different, but in fact the same Hkleinnl —Preceding comment was added at 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)