Geeking : 634


Off-Topic / Geek / 634	633 \| 635

Subject:	Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.geek
Date:	Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:41:56 GMT
Viewed:	586 times

Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <380a066d.171574518@lugnet.com>... > > The 1961 dead-trees M-W defines "lowest common denominator" as: > > 1: the lowest common multiple of two or more denominators. > 2: something (as a quality or level of taste) that typifies or is • common, > acceptable, or comprehensible to all or the greatest possible • number > of individuals. <the committee system...reduces all ideas to the > lowest common denominator --M.W.Straight> <broadcasting...falls • into > the error of producing programs at the lowest common denominator > --Franklin Dunham> <living together in boredom, men exhibit their > lowest common denominator --Clement Greenberg> <the quest by...the > movies and radio for lowest common denominators --John Collier • b.1884> > > Looks like the non-math use of "lowest common denominator" goes back • several > decades, at least. I don't have an OED handy to check if it goes back • even > further. M-W online did say that "denominator" went back to at least the > late 16th Century. I have to be honest Todd... much of your math was just over my head. Sorry. :( Just kidding, but I really never was much good with fractions. But I did find this 2nd definition from the '61 M-W to be interesting. It pretty much is what I intended by my comment, and is the way in which I believed the expression was to have been used. I wonder if it's possible that the mathematical definition and the common usage for this expression are not entirely compatible? When you present equations using numbers it certainly seems to support one case. However the common usage (be it right or wrong) seems to be similar to the way in which I used it, and in fact the way in which this dictionary defines it. My Funk and Wagnells Standard College Dictionary lists only the mathematical usage of the expression, so I'm not sure that I'm equipped to defend myself any further. :) However, I think a case can be made for both definitions, depending on the context. Best regards, Allan -- Expert Builder Website - The Megaproject Showcase http://www.execulink.com/~apotome/expert.htm

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
(...) Dictionaries, of course, are just tools reflecting common usage. Or supposed to be. That doesn't mean that common usage is correct. :) On another tangent, since we're in .off-topic already -- I really think the word "dumpster" has entered the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

		Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
(...) Oh...sorry, I left out the "limit as n approaches infinity" part. ;-) (...) I wonder that too. At first glance, they seem very incompatible. I'm not an English scholar, so I can't really say. But I think what may have happened is that the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Message is in Reply To:

		Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
(...) I think the most accurate math term is actually the "greatest common factor" or "greatest common divisor" (GCF or GCD for short), which refers to the largest natural number which equally divides two whole numbers in question. In non-math (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

30 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search