Definitions: $v_{h,k}=\frac{1}{k(k+k_1)}$ and $w_{h,k}=\frac{1}{k(k+k_2)}$

where $\frac{h_1}{k_1}\lt\frac{h}{k} \lt\frac{h_2}{k_2}$ are sucessive farey fractions.

Proof that: $\frac{h_1}{k_1}-\frac{h}{k}=-w_{{h_1},{k_1}}-v_{h,k}$ and $\frac{h}{k}=\frac{h_1+h_2}{k_1+k_2}$

I know the property of fractions in the farey sequences: $\frac{h_1}{k_1}-\frac{h}{k}=-\frac{1}{k_1k}$

This gives me : $\frac{1}{k_1k}=\frac{1}{k_1(k_1+k_2)}+\frac{1}{k(k_1+k)}$

I get a contradiction. Either I did a simple mistake or the problem I was given is simply wrong (or not stated correctly).

As far as I know the two definitions are quite common and I hope that someone can either correct my mistake or maybe give me the correct problem.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\frac{h_1}{k_1}-\frac hk=-\frac{1}{k(k+k_1)}-\frac{1}{k_1(k+k_1)}$ holds, but I don't know if this is what you want. $\endgroup$ – mathlove Jan 9 '18 at 12:35

I don't see any contradiction in the first part. By definition, $h=h_1+h_2$ and $k=k_1+k_2$, so that $$ \frac{h_1}{k_1}-\frac{h_1+h_2}{k_1+k_2}=\frac{h_1k_2-k_1h_2}{k_1(k_1+k_2)}=\frac{-1}{k_1(k_1+k_2)}, $$ because $k_1h_2-h_1k_2=1$ as Farey neighbours. But in the definition of $v_{h,k}$ and $w_{h,k}$ there is no $h$ appearing.

  • $\begingroup$ Sry, but I dont see how this explains the statement in the yellow box. I had to edit my question because $\frac{h}{k}=\frac{h_1+h_2}{k_1+k_2}$ $\endgroup$ – XPenguen Jan 6 '18 at 2:02
  • $\begingroup$ and not $h=h_1+h_2, k=k_1+k_2$ $\endgroup$ – XPenguen Jan 6 '18 at 7:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.