The Mathematics 11

Competency Test

Reducing Numerical Fractions to

Simplest Form

To reduce a numerical fraction to simplest form means to rewrite it as an equivalent fraction

which has the smallest possible denominator. People refer to this operation as reducing a
fraction to lowest terms.
Recall that starting with a fraction, we can get an equivalent fraction by either:
(i) multiplying the numerator and denominator by the same nonzero value
or
(ii) dividing the numerator and denominator by the same nonzero value.
Obviously if the goal of simplification is to find an equivalent fraction with a smaller denominator,
we will have to use the second principle: dividing the numerator and denominator by the same
nonzero value.
The strategy for finding the values to divide into the numerator and denominator is quite
systematic:
Step 1: Factor both the numerator and denominator into a product of prime factors using the
method described in the previous note in this series.
Step 2: If the numerator and denominator both have a prime factor which is the same, then
divide the current numerator and denominator by that value. The result will be the numerator and
denominator of an equivalent fraction, but with a smaller denominator.
Repeat step 2 as often as possible. When the numerator and denominator have no further prime
factors in common, they form the desired equivalent fraction which has the smallest denominator.
We have then obtained the simplest form of the original fraction.
Example: Reduce the fraction

42
to simplest form.
70

solution:
For this example, well go through the process step-by-step in some detail. Then well illustrate
the familiar shortcuts in a couple of examples.
The prime factorizations of the numerator and denominator here are easily obtained:
42 = 2 x 21 = 2 x 3 x 7
70 = 2 x 35 = 2 x 5 x 7
So, the numerator and denominator of the fraction we are given both contain the prime factor 2.
Thus

42
42
2 = 21
=
70 70
35
2

David W. Sabo (2003)

37
= 57

Reducing Numerical Fractions to

Simplest Form

Page 1 of 4

The new fraction, 21

35

, is simpler than the old fraction, 42

smaller than the original denominator of 70. Still, 21

70

is equivalent to 42

35

obtained by dividing both the numerator and denominator of 42

But 21

35

, because its denominator, 35, is

70

70

because it was

by the same value, 2.

is still not in simplest form because the factorization of its numerator and denominator

(shown in brackets above) indicates that they both still contain a common prime factor of 7. so

21
42 21
3
=
= 7=
70 35 35
5
7
Thus, we have

42 3
= .
70 5
These two fractions, the original

42

70

and the final

dividing the numerator and denominator of

42

70

3 , are equivalent because we got 3 by

5
5

by the same values (2 and 7 in turn, or

effectively, 14, if you think of doing it in one step). Furthermore, the numerator and denominator
of

clearly do not share any further common prime factors, and so this simplification process

cannot be carried further. Therefore,

is the simplest form of

Example: Reduce the fraction

42

70

42
to simplest form.
70

solution:
Yes! This is the same problem as the first one. What we want to do here is show the shortcut
form of the strategy for simplifying fractions.
We begin as before by rewriting both the numerator and the denominator as a product of prime
factors:

42 2 3 7
=
70 2 5 7
Now, if you study the steps of the previous example, you will see that dividing the numerator and
denominator by 2 results in those two factors disappearing from each. We indicate this by
drawing slashes through them:

David W. Sabo (2003)

Reducing Numerical Fractions to

Simplest Form

Page 2 of 4

42 2 3 7 3 7
=
=
70 2 5 7 5 7
Dividing the numerator and denominator in the resulting factored equation by 7 again just results
in those two factors of 7 disappearing from each. So again,

42 2 3 7 3 7 3
=
=
=
70 2 5 7 5 7 5
Now there are no common factors left in the numerator and denominator, so the process ends,
and we conclude that

is the simplest form of

42

70

In practice, this whole process is typically done in a single step, crossing out pairs of factors
without rewriting intermediate forms:

42 2 3 7 3
=
=
70 2 5 7 5

The way the simplification process is displayed in this second example is why people often refer
to it as cancelling common factors. You write the numerator and denominator as products of
prime factors. Then, if they have a prime factor in common, simply cancel it out in each. This
cancelling is the equivalent of dividing the numerator and denominator by that same value, so the
fraction that is left after cancelling a prime factor common to both numerator and denominator will
be equivalent to the original fraction, but of course, its denominator will be smaller. Then, just
repeat this cancelling process for every common factor in the numerator and denominator.

Example: Simplify

220
.
88

solution:
Very briefly, resolving the numerator and denominator into products of prime factors gives
220 = 2 x 2 x 5 x 11
and
88 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 11
So,

220 2 2 5 11 5
=
=
88
2 2 2 11 2
Thus, the simplest form of

220

88

is

5 . (Notice that this simplification method works even for

2

improper fractions fractions in which the numerator is larger than the denominator.)

David W. Sabo (2003)

Reducing Numerical Fractions to

Simplest Form

Page 3 of 4

Example: Reduce

234
to lowest terms.
315

solution:
234 = 2 x 3 x 3 x 13
and
315 = 3 x 3 x 5 x 7
So,

234 2 3 3 13 2 13 26
=
=
=
315
5 7 35
3 3 57
Since 26 and 35 share no factors in common, this is the simplest form to which we can reduce
the original fraction.

If you recognize a common factor in the numerator and denominator of a fraction, it is permissible
to cancel that factor as a way to get the fraction into a simpler form immediately. However, to
guarantee that your final result is the simplest form you must perform this systematic procedure.
It will be essential to use the systematic approach when we deal with the simplification of
algebraic fractions.

David W. Sabo (2003)

Reducing Numerical Fractions to

Simplest Form

Page 4 of 4