Page |1

An Alternative Proof for the Nature of Combined Parallel

Resistances
§ 1. | INTRODUCTION
The concept of parallel resistance has ubiquitous applications in modern technology. A thorough
grasp of it is essential for those working with electrical circuits, ensuring that they understand the
theoretical side of the devices they work with. Physics students and aspiring electrical engineers
also stand to gain from a good intuition.
In this paper, I aim to mitigate the fog that once obscured my understanding of how these resistors
behave. I also give my very own take on how the concept may be explained algebraically. The next
section addresses the most basic arrangement of parallel resistances; it is later used as the basis of
my interpretation using set theory.
My explanation in the first theorem is much less rigorous than that of Theorem n. This enables
those with less mathematical knowledge to understand it, while enforcing some of the intuition
acquired in the first section. Although my arrangement of the formula in Theorem n just barely
alludes to the inverse of the Harmonic Series, it may not have many other practical purposes. I only
used it for the step-by-step explanation of this topic, otherwise, it’s much too unwieldy to substitute
for the original textbook formula.
Before reading further, know that:
- All resistances are non-zero i.e., Rn > 0, where Rn is the resistance of the nth resistor.

- n is a natural number i.e., n ∈ N .

- The fact that I sometimes refer to any component as a resistor, or that I labelled its resistance R n,
does not imply that that is all it is. It could be any component or appliance within a parallel
connection.

Now, the actual proof.

 Page |2

§ 2. | Consider: Rearranging the Combined Resistance formula for two resistors in

parallel

The formula for finding the Equivalent Resistance of two components [R 1 and R2] in a parallel
connection is:

( )
−1
1 1
Rc = + ,
R 1 R2

where Rc symbolizes the Combined Resistance of that parallel connection.

The formula can be rearranged by multiplying the numerator and denominator of both fractions by
the other resistance to give a single denominator:

( )
−1
R2 + R1 R1 × R2
Rc = = .
R1× R2 R 1+ R 2

Factoring out either resistance gives this equation:

Rc =
( R1
R 1+ R 2)× R2=
R2
(
R 1+ R 2
× R1 .
)
Since all resistances are positive i.e., R 1 > 0 and R2 > 0. We can add the other resistance to both
sides respectively to get these inequalities:

R1 + R2 > R2∧R 2+ R 1> R 1 .

We can conclude that the sum of the two resistances in the denominator is greater than the
resistance in the numerator.
Therefore:
 Page |3

R1 R2
0< < 1∧0< <1.
R1 + R2 R1 + R2
Either of these fractions, when multiplied by its respective resistance outside of the parentheses
shall output a resistance that is smaller than both input resistances [R1 and R2]. Multiplying all sides
of both inequalities by the other resistance respectively yields this result:

( R1
R1 + R2 )
× R2 < R2∧
R2
(
R1 + R2 )
× R1 < R1 .

These are equivalent in that R c is on the left side of both inequalities. This proves that, for two
resistors in a parallel connection, the Effective Resistance is less than that of either resistor.

§ 3. | A Pairing Theorem: Extending the first interpretation to several pairs of

resistors in parallel

Before looking at the more meticulous proof, I will introduce an outlook that uses some of the
previous intuition. Basing off what we understand from Section 1, we can already prove that the
Effective Resistance is less than each resistance within a parallel connection. This can be done by
grouping several resistors into pairs. Now, what does this mean?
I shall introduce a parallel connection, which we can refer to as set P. There are four components
with resistances A, B, C and D such that:

P ⊇{ A , B , C , D} .

Knowing that the Combined Resistance of two resistors in parallel is less than that of either
resistor, we can deduce that the combination of resistances in the subset {A, B} or R AB will have less
resistance than both A and B:

R AB < A∧R AB < B .

The same holds true for the combined resistance of subset {C, D} or R CD:

RCD <C∧RCD < D .

 Page |4

Putting these two combinations together will give the combination R ABCD or RP, which has a lesser
resistance than both RAB and RCD:

R P < R AB∧R P < RCD .

Since RAB and RCD have a lower resistance than each of their constituent resistances, this proves that
the Effectual Resistance of set P is less than that of A, B, C or D:

R P < A , R P < B , RP < C∧R P < D .

This, of course, can be used to generalize for parallel connections with many more resistors, i.e. A,
B, C and D could themselves be combinations of several resistors; because once a combination has
been made, it can be thought of as a singular resistor. Pairing many more combinations will lead to
the same result: a lower resistance than that of any singular potential difference in a parallel
connection. This interpretation serves as an alternative understanding to the forthcoming proof
with more mathematical rigor.

§ 4. | Theorem n: An arbitrary number of resistors in a parallel connection

Below is the formula used to calculate the Combined Resistance of a connection of a finite arbitrary
number of resistors in parallel:

( )
−1
1 1 1
Rc = + + …+ .
R 1 R2 Rk

(Rk is used to denote the last counted resistor in the connection.)

 Page |5

To explain why the Equivalent Resistance is less than that of any individual resistor, I must
rearrange the formula into a finite series. This is easier to interpret by turning the whole series into
a single fraction; turning the sum of several “rational” numbers into a single fraction involves giving
them a common denominator. A straightforward way of doing this is by multiplying both the
a
numerator and denominator of each inverse resistance by the same number. After all, b × =b .
a
For each resistance, dividing and multiplying it by all the other resistances in the connection allows
it to have the same denominator as them, i.e.

( ((∏ ) ) ((∏ ) ) ((∏ ) )

)
k k k −1

1× R n ÷ R1 1× Rn ÷ R2 1× Rn ÷ Rk
n=1 n=1 n=1
Rc = + +…+ .

((∏ ) ) ((∏ ) ) ((∏ ) )

k k k
R1× R n ÷ R1 R2× Rn ÷ R2 Rk × Rn ÷ Rk
n=1 n=1 n=1

Verily, for all fractions in the finite series, simplifying by cancelling out the identical products in the
1
numerator and denominator return each inverse resistance to the form . Furthermore, each
Rn
product of all the parallel resistances excludes the resistor in the denominator, as shown by the
division by each respective Rn, i.e.

(∏ )
k
Rn ÷ Rn .
n=1

This operation will cancel out each respective resistance in the denominator, and unite each
fraction over a common denominator:

( ((∏ ) ) (( ∏ ) ) ((∏ ) )
)
k k k −1

R n ÷ R1 + Rn ÷ R 2 +…+ Rn ÷ Rk
n=1 n=1 n=1
Rc = k
.
∏ Rn
n=1
 Page |6

This has given rise to another finite series, this time, an arithmetic sum in the numerator. Each term
in the series shares a common multiple, that is, the finite product. In that respect, we can use sigma
notation to represent the series, encapsulating the finite product that will be calculated for each
term in the finite sum:

( (( ) )
)
k k −1

∑ ∏ Rn ÷ Rn
n=1 n=1
Rc = k
.
∏ Rn
n=1

Now we can get rid of the negative power by reciprocating the fraction, giving the finalized formula:

∏ Rn
n =1
Rc = .

(( ) )
k k

∑ ∏ Rn ÷ Rn
n=1 n=1

For improved legibility:

The product nested within the sigma notation, i.e.

∏ Rn ,
n =1

will repeat for each term in the sum, and this will always yield the same product. Instead of
recalculating the product, it can be treated as a constant once calculated. To declutter the following
expressions and avoid the pi notation terms being confused with those of the sigma notation, it will
be referred to as PR:

∏ R n=P R .
n =1

Back to the main proof:

 Page |7

To evaluate this as we did in Section 1, we must factor out an arbitrary resistance from the
numerator:

( )
PR ÷ Rn
Rc = k
× Rn
∑ ( PR ÷ Rn )
n=1

Just as before, the resistance Rn that I factored out of the fraction returns us to the original equation
through simplification (n could be any number between 1 and k inclusive). Since all resistances are
greater than zero, the finite product will never be equal to zero. Therefore:

P R ÷ Rn > 0.

Moreover, the numerator of the fraction within parentheses is only one term within the finite sum
in the denominator. Therefore, we can once again conclude that the denominator is larger than the
numerator:

∑ ( P R ÷ Rn ) > P R ÷ R n
n =1

Thus, proving that this inequality is true:

PR ÷ Rn
0< <1
k
.
∑ ( PR ÷ Rn)
n=1

Multiplying through by any resistance Rn gives:

PR
0< k
< Rn
∑ ( PR ÷ Rn)
n=1
 Page |8

Now to reintroduce the product in its original form:

∏ Rn
n=1
0< < Rn

(( ) )
k k

∑ ∏ Rn ÷ Rn
n=1 n=1

We can see that the middle of the inequality is the right-hand side of the finalized formula for the
Combined Resistance, and replacing it brings us to:

0< R c < R n .

This proves that, for several sources of non-zero resistance in a parallel connection, the Equivalent
Resistance of a combination of them is greater than zero and less than any individual resistance in
the connection.