I'm reading an English translation of Khinchin's Continued Fractions and I may have found an error in Theorem 1, page 4.
Khinchin observes that if we simplify a finite continued fraction $[a_0; a_1, ... a_n]$ as $p/q$, and the continued fraction $[a_1; a_2, ... a_n]$ as $p'/q'$, then because of $p/q = a_0 + \frac 1 {p'/q'}$, we can choose values of $p$ and $q$ such that:
$$p = a_0 p' + q', \quad q= p' \tag {*}$$
And uses this to recursively define a standard representation of a finite continued fraction in the form $p/q$.
Khinchin defines $[a_0; a_1, ... a_k]$ as the $k$-th convergent of a continued fraction $[a_0; a_1, ... a_n]$ where $n\geq k$.
Theorem 1 states, where $p_k/q_k$ is the standard representation of the $k$-th convergent:
$$p_k = a_k p_{k-1} + p_{k-2}$$ $$q_k = a_k q_{k-1} + q_{k-2}$$
Now Khinchin writes $p'_r/q'_r$ for the $r$-th convergent. This is where I first got suspicious... isn't he already writing $p_r/q_r$ for the that? Then he says:
On the basis of the formulas in $(*)$, $$p_n = q_0p'_{n-1} + q'_{n-1}$$ $$q_n=p'_{n-1}$$
What? That isn't what $(*)$ says at all! That recurrence relates $[a_0; a_1, ... a_n]$ to $[a_1; a_2, ... a_n]$, here Khinchin is trying to relate $[a_0; a_1, ... a_n]$ to $[a_0; a_1, .. a_{n-1}]$. It seems to me that Khinchin or the translator is using the word "convergent" wrongly. The recurrence relations forming the basis of Theorem 1 seem to be true when "convergent" is interpreted using the definition that I gave above, but I only verified that for $k=2$.
The problem turned out to be a very simple reading error on my part.
In fact Khinchin's $p'_r/q'_r$ is not the $r^{\rm th}$ convergent of the original continued fraction
$$[a_0; a_1, ... a_n],$$
but of the continued fraction:
$$[a_1; a_2, ..., a_n],$$
in which case his claim is obvious.