Multiplying and Dividing Rational Expressions
Learning goals
- Multiply straight across, with no common denominator needed
- Flip the divisor, adding the condition that it is nonzero
- Factor everything first, since expanding hides what cancels
- Collect every restriction from the original expression
- Write the restrictions even when the answer is a polynomial
The product rule, and why it is allowed
A rational expression is a quotient of polynomials with not the zero polynomial, and it is undefined at every number where its denominator evaluates to zero. To multiply two of them, do what you do with fractions:
The result is a rational expression again. Polynomials are closed under multiplication, so and are polynomials, and is not the zero polynomial as long as neither nor is. Rational expressions are therefore closed under multiplication, exactly as fractions are.
Multiplying straight across is not a convention someone picked. It follows from what a quotient means.
Why #
Fix a number at which both expressions are defined, so and . At that the two expressions are ordinary numbers, so it is enough to prove the ordinary fraction rule for numbers , , , with and .
The quotient is defined as the number that gives back when you multiply it by ; that is what dividing means. Write and , so that and . Multiply those two equations together and regroup the factors, which is allowed because multiplication is commutative and associative:
So is a number that gives back when multiplied by . Since and , the product is nonzero, so exactly one number does that: if then , and a product of nonzero numbers is never zero, so . That one number is by definition, hence .
The argument used nothing about , , , beyond and , so it runs at every with and . That is precisely the set where both factors are defined, and it is where the identity holds.
Look at what the proof needed and what it never mentioned. It needed and . It said nothing about or , which are free to vanish. A product of rational expressions carries no hidden condition: the only restrictions are the ones the denominators impose. Remember that, because division is about to break it.
Factor first, never last
Consider
The rule says multiply the numerators and multiply the denominators, and you are welcome to do so immediately:
Now look at what you are holding. To simplify it you must factor a quartic on top and a quartic on the bottom, hunting for rational roots and running synthetic division on each candidate. And the factorizations you need are the ones you were holding thirty seconds ago, before you multiplied them out. Expanding is the one operation that reliably destroys the structure you are about to need.
Factor first instead, and the cancellations are visible on sight:
Same problem, no quartics, no root hunting. You met this idea when you graphed polynomials: the factored form is the one that shows you the roots, and expanding hides them. It is the same story here. The factored form of a rational expression is the form in which its cancellations and its restrictions are legible. Every method in this chapter begins by putting everything into it.
Worked example 1 Multiply
Factor all four polynomials before doing anything else. Pull the common factor of out first, then use the difference of squares:
The other three are , then , and finally . Read the restrictions off the two denominators right now, while they are factored: the first vanishes at and , the second at .
Now multiply across and cancel the factors common to the top and the bottom:
The answer is with , , and . Only one of those three restrictions is still visible in the answer. The other two rode on factors that cancelled, and they have to be carried along by hand.
Check your understanding
Simplify .
Factor first. The only thing that needs factoring is the difference of squares .
Both and cancel, so the answer is , and the restrictions and are carried along from the original denominators.
The restrictions live in the original
Cancelling changes the domain, and that is a real change rather than a bookkeeping nuisance. Take
At the original expression asks you to divide by , so it does not exist there. The simplified form is perfectly comfortable at : it returns . The two are therefore not the same function. They agree at every number where the original is defined, and at one of them exists and the other does not.
So the answer is not . The answer is
and the restriction is as much a part of it as the algebra is. Restrictions are read off the original expression, before any cancelling, because cancelling is precisely the step that erases them.
Dividing means multiplying by the reciprocal
To divide by a fraction, flip it and multiply. Rational expressions are no different:
Why flipping the divisor works, and what it costs#
Dividing by a quantity means undoing multiplication by it: is the quantity that gives back when you multiply it by . That description only makes sense when . If then everything multiplied by gives , so when no such quantity exists at all, and when every quantity qualifies. Either way there is no single value to call the quotient, which is what “division by zero is undefined” means.
Now fix a number at which , , and are all nonzero. The divisor is then defined, and because its numerator is nonzero the divisor itself is nonzero, so the quotient we want exists. Test the candidate by multiplying it by the divisor, using the product rule proved above:
where the last step cancels the factors and , both nonzero at . The candidate gives back the dividend when multiplied by the divisor, so the candidate is the quotient:
Read off the hypotheses that argument used: , , and . The first two say the two rational expressions are defined. The third is new, and it is not a technicality. It is the statement that you are not dividing by zero.
So a quotient of rational expressions carries three conditions, one on each of three polynomials:
Of the four polynomials on the page, only , the dividend’s numerator, is free to be zero. The third condition is worth restating in the form you will actually use. Wherever the divisor is defined, it equals zero exactly when its numerator equals zero. If and then the fraction is , and conversely if the fraction is then multiplying both sides by gives . So the rule is simply that the divisor’s numerator can never be zero, and that is the restriction almost nobody writes down.
The vanishing restriction
Here is the trap in its purest form. Divide:
Before touching anything, collect the three conditions. The dividend’s denominator gives . The divisor’s denominator gives . The divisor’s numerator gives , because at the divisor is and you would be dividing by zero. Now flip and multiply:
Nothing cancelled. Nothing came close to cancelling. And the answer has still lost a restriction: its denominators are and , so the page now announces and and says nothing whatever about . Put into the answer and you get , an utterly ordinary value. Put into the original and the divisor is , which does not exist.
The flip did not reveal a hidden restriction. It traded one hidden restriction for another. Before the flip, sits in a numerator, so is invisible. After the flip, sits in a numerator, so is invisible. No single form of the expression displays all three conditions at once.
The same story as a ledger, for the example above:
| Restriction | Where it comes from | Shown by ? | Shown by ? |
|---|---|---|---|
| the dividend’s denominator | yes | yes | |
| the divisor’s denominator | yes | no | |
| the divisor cannot be zero | no | yes |
There is no stage after the original at which the page carries every restriction, so there is exactly one safe procedure. Collect the restrictions from the original expression, using the division rule, before you flip and before you cancel.
Cancelling then makes things worse. Take the standard exercise
From the original: , since is the denominator of both fractions, and , since that is where the divisor is zero. Flip and multiply:
The answer is with and . The that was staring at you twice in the original has cancelled itself out of existence. And the only restriction the answer still shows is , which is the one that was invisible when you started.
Now change a single polynomial and watch every trace disappear:
The answer is a polynomial. It is defined at every real number and it advertises no restrictions at all. But the expression you started from is undefined at , where both denominators vanish, and undefined at , where the divisor is . The honest answer is
a polynomial with two holes punched in it. Nothing in the symbols will ever remind you they are there. Your notes are the only place those two facts survive, which is the whole reason you collect them first.
Check your understanding
Which values of must be excluded from ?
Read the original. Both denominators are , so . The divisor is zero exactly when its numerator is zero, and dividing by zero is undefined, so as well.
The simplified form shows only ; the restriction cancelled away and has to be carried along. Note that is allowed: it only makes the dividend's numerator zero, and a numerator is free to vanish.
Worked example 2 Divide
Factor all four polynomials first:
Collect the restrictions from this original form, before flipping anything. The dividend’s denominator gives and . The divisor’s denominator gives and . The divisor’s numerator gives , because the divisor is zero exactly where and you cannot divide by zero.
Now flip the divisor and multiply:
The answer is
Two of those four restrictions survive in the answer’s denominator, and . The other two do not. At the answer returns , and at it returns , both perfectly finite, while the original expression exists at neither. Those two restrictions are true only because you wrote them down.
Worked example 3 Divide by the polynomial
A polynomial is a rational expression with denominator , so write the divisor as and the rule applies unchanged. Factor, then collect restrictions:
The dividend’s denominator gives and . The divisor’s denominator is the constant , which is never zero, so it costs nothing. The divisor’s numerator gives : dividing by is illegal exactly where .
That last restriction deserves a hard look. Nowhere in the expression as written is there a denominator containing , so nothing on the page hints at it. It comes from the division symbol alone.
Flip and multiply:
The answer is with , , and . Check the odd one out: at the answer evaluates to , a genuine number, while the original asks you to divide by . That is undefined, and only your notes remember it.
Check your understanding
The quotient simplifies to . At which values of is the original quotient undefined?
Read the original, not the answer. Both denominators are , so . The divisor is zero exactly when , and dividing by zero is undefined, so .
The simplified form is a polynomial and betrays neither restriction, but the original quotient is undefined at and at .