Explore related knowledge and questions →

Question 32195: Validity of a Fraction Representation

On this page
  1. Original question and givens
  2. Definition and scope
  3. Step-by-step derivation
  4. Reverse checks
  5. Result
  6. This question review and source binding

Return to catalogue page 161

← Question derivation index · Original question batch

R0063-32195 · q-20260930-r01-fraction-representation-validity-0020

Original question and givens

For integer numerator p=7 and denominator q=6, is p/q a valid rational-number representation? Answer Yes or No.

  • G001 — For integer numerator p=7 and denominator q=6, is p/q a valid rational-number representation? Answer Yes or No.

Definition and scope

Use the original question domain, assumptions and cited MKO definitions. This item has second-context mathematical and bilingual review, with the model, answer and every arithmetic step independently recomputed from the original parameters; the source question remains a candidate.

Step-by-step derivation

S001 · implies

Before

source roles = [qf-fraction-representation-validity, representation_validity, no-required-domain, []]

After

derived = [[nonzero_denominator_YesNo_STRING]]

Conditions: none

BASE sources do not acquire a generic legacy operation/domain or unknown-metadata ban.Retain metadata WITHOUT using it as an answer oracle.PULSE/legacy enforce their exact source keys,operation/domain.Do not impose universal tuples,/1 or input bounds.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: R63_SOURCE_bank_keys_operation_domain_output_roles_metadata_not_oracle · Uses: G001

S002 · implies

Before

source roles = [7, 6, []]

After

derived = [Yes]

Conditions: none

Validate EVERY raw SAFE integer component,including the numerator at q0/0/0 eligibility.A validity task may legally return No;actual arithmetic requires ALL used denominators nonzero.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: Fraction_ALL_RAW_SAFE_integer_components_even_zero_den_validity · Uses: G001, S001

Reverse checks

  • S002 · premise_and_result_audit — Reverse-check ORIGINAL inputs,types,domain and premises;the conclusion need not uniquely recover its premises.Keep source-bound candidates,independent review,formal proof and publication separate.
  • S001 · premise_and_result_audit — Reverse-check ORIGINAL inputs,types,domain and premises;the conclusion need not uniquely recover its premises.Keep source-bound candidates,independent review,formal proof and publication separate.

Result

Yes

The full substitutions and premise checks give the original answer; source identity,format and status are unchanged.

This question review and source binding

Review date: 2026-10-26

Original questions, answers, step expressions, numeric ASTs and historical records are retained. Source candidate labels remain historical and are not overwritten as formal proof.

Source hashes and review receipts
  • input commit: 0f7be61e2c22317a4075561dc822c87d881a50db
  • original question SHA-256: 6793547c7a8c332f74f8db4b54d99ad9a3d628e6c254620a9bed0a6bee54868f
  • candidate record SHA-256: a5df2b83e7ebdd9ec9cfc5191455df4ac7be713003ec5c004d4660eb0a97f21d
  • semantic review receipt SHA-256: acf03b776f4855e3869810bcbecf1116e3a2b11dfb1e2a5dfbcf8135ad24a7d0
  • question-first witness SHA-256: eadbbac3220988b52754f32450fb536d627217306d1ce28a49134f56c21bfa88
  • Lean: NOT_RUN · human review: NOT_PERFORMED
Same-source full JSON