The exposition for this page is
just beginning, but if you'd like to look at some diagrams illustrating how
to perform some continued fraction arithmetic, links are below... but you're
going to have to figure out what's going on on your own until I get to
writing the text for this section.

All I'm going to show you now is
some examples of Gosper's Algorithm for basic arithmetic operations on
N-fractions. Bear in mind that I'm using the Kornerup-Matula
assignment of vertices to the coefficient cube. So, in the diagrams
below, use the Kornerup-Matula initializations and transformations.

All the four arithmetic
operations are implemented with using all the same tensor
transformations. The only difference between the various arithmetic
operations is the initial tensor.

Probably one of the first things
that occurs to you is... how am I ever going to remember these? Well,
actually there's an easy way to remember them. This is the
representation of the coefficient cube as an algebraic equation and one
possible representative coefficient tensor:

Now look what happens when we
substitute these initial coefficient values back into this algebraic
equation and simplify:

Anyway, that's how I remember them.

Next, the coefficient cube is transformed
according to the same rules irregardless of the particular arithmetic
operation being performed, i.e. addition, subtraction, etc. This jpeg
illustrates those transformation on the coefficient cube. The x and y
input operands are defined just as in the formulas above.

First of all, it's helpful to know that the
matrix a-b-e-f (all the terms having an x in them) is referred to as the
leading x-face of the coefficient cube. Likewise, c-d-g-h (all y
terms) is called the leading y-face, and e-f-g-h the leading z-face.
Also, inputting a partial quotient from one of the input continued fraction
expansion (x or y) is called absorption, and outputting a partial quotient
of the resultant continued fraction expansion is called emission (z).

There are a couple of ways in which to
visualize this. Some diagrams have the different coefficient cubes
actually touching... two adjacent cubes would share either a leading x-, y-,
or z- face (from the perspective of the former cube in the
calculation). So a new cube in the calculation just sorts of grows out
of an old one by dropping one face and growing another. As you can see
from the diagram above, this new face is 'grown' in the direction of
whichever input operand is absorbed or if an emission is made.

However, because of the limitations of my
present software, it's not practical to construct connect-the-cube diagrams
as outlined here, so the association between cubes will be indicated by
arrows pointing one cube to another. Visualized in this manner, it
might be easier to see it as first swapping the x-, y-, or z- face with its
opposing face, followed by the multiplication by the new input operand being
absorbed (or the negative of the emission output) and additions as outlined
in the diagram above. In any case, the new face will be the new
leading x-, y-, or z- face on the new cube depending on which input operand
was absorbed (or emitted).

Programming-wise I think it's probably
easiest to simply store the transformation tensor as a 2- by 4-matrix as
depicted above and define some special tensor operations on it. One
can define a right tensor product to simply be the action of absorbing a new
x- input operand, which involves performing the leading x-face matrix scalar
multiplication with the addition of the y-face matrix, followed or preceded
by an exchange of the x- and y- faces. Then, with this definition, a
left matrix product corresponding to the action of absorbing as new y- input
operand can be simply done by performing this same right tensor product
preceded by a tensor transpose swapping the vertices b-c and f-g.
Emission is again essentially an identical operation and can be performed by
the same operation preceded by a tensor transpose of the vertices a-g and
g-h, being sure to multiply by the negative of emitted partial
quotient. However, instead of defined another tensor transpose, I've
just been defining emission as a separate operation. Obviously, either
approach is valid, and will produce identical results.

Now, we have to know when to make an
emission. This diagram defines the conditions under which an emission
is indicated:

First of all, this diagram is a bit
misleading in one rather blatant respect. Kornerup and Matula were
talking about rational arithmetic on redundant continued fractions which
demands a completely different test for emission of an output partial
quotient. This emission test is not the one used for their algorithm,
but it will work with Gosper's algorithm with the vertex assignment Kornerup
and Matula use. Again, I'm using the vertex assignment of Kornerup and
Matula.

Before preceding to the example calculations
(some not yet completed...), there's one more thing I should point
out. Gosper mentions something about the bounding interval for the
resultant, z, either being inside a/e = b/f = c/g = d/h, or outside this
interval depending on the sign of the denominator of the tensor viewed in
the algebraic formula form above. I believe what he means is that if
the sign of the denominator is negative than the interval becomes an
interval around through infinity. So, roughly, inside (1,
2) would mean z is greater than one and less than two, whereas
outside (1, 2) would mean that z is less than one and greater than two... which is an interval passing through infinity. I'm not
sure I fully understand this yet, however, and haven't implemented it
yet. I'm unsure under what conditions a negative denominator can show
up under, but in the examples I've tried so far, negative numbers have not
appeared and everything seems to work fine... however, this is a possibly
disastrous loose end that until I understand more, I must urge caution.

The first example will be the incomplete
addition of 45/16 and 27/10. Incomplete because there isn't enough
information contained in the partial quotients of the input operands to
fully determine the expansion of the output continued fraction. Gosper
was largely dealing with infinite continued fractions where partial
quotients do not run out... and besides, infinite continued fractions
represent perhaps the most useful application of continued fraction
arithmetic. The problem is simply that the amount of information
contained in an input partial quotient is rather small in its ability to
bound the resultant continued fraction expansion. Others have improved
on this, but this limitation still exists.

Obviously, there are probably some rather
simple 'tricks' to get around these problems with rational operands with
Gosper's algorithm... some perhaps might be considered 'cheating', in
fact. Nevertheless, this route is open to us if we wish... and since I
argue that continued fraction arithmetic perhaps has it's most useful
application with infinite continued fractions, this might be okay
anyway. By the way, my assertion here that 'continued fraction
arithmetic perhaps has it's most useful application with infinite continued
fractions' is argumentative. It all depends on what you're trying to
do... there's no clear-cut consensus on an assertion such as this.

In any case, this simple initial example to
illustrate the processes involved in continued fraction arithmetic with
Gosper's algorithm. I hope that the illustration will be largely
self-explanatory given this short introduction. The diagram is fairly
large... it goes over to the right a fair distance.

The second example deals with two infinite
continued fractions and therefore is probably a more useful application of
Gosper's algorithm. This diagram is quite large... and perhaps is not
yet complete. By complete in this case, I mean I'm hoping for
recurrence to show up in the tensors which will indicate that a period has
started. I think everyone knows that the product of the sqrt(5) and
the sqrt(7) is the sqrt(35), however, I thought I understood that some
manifestation indicative of recurrence would show up in the tensors as
evidence of this recurrence. I'm starting to believe I misunderstood,
because with this example and others like it I've done, there doesn't appear
to be any obvious sign of recurrence in the tensors. I need to do more
investigation on this issue.