Subject:
|
Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Oct 1999 19:30:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
608 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, "Allan Bedford" writes:
> I have to be honest Todd... much of your math was just over my head.
> Sorry. :(
Oh...sorry, I left out the "limit as n approaches infinity" part. ;-)
> 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?
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 term "lowest common denominator" popped up sometime
many decades ago as a popular misconception for the term "least common
denominator." The word bindings on "lowest common denominator" can't mean
"lowest-common denominator," but "least common denominator" really means (as
far as I can tell) the "least-common denominator" rather than the "least
(smallest) denominator common to both or all." In other words, designing
for or accommodating the "lowest common denominator" really means (in the
non-math meaning) designing for or accommodating "even the least common
(i.e., most infrequent) common denominator."
It might be interesting to look at older forms of the word "denominator" and
other similar words like "nominate," "denominate," and "denominational."
For a site like Yahoo!, it certainly does make sense to welcome and
accommodate even the most infrequent ingredients rather than locking out all
but the most frequent or popular or common ingredient. In the case of the
new TLG website, it looks like they locked out all but the most infrequent
ingredients (JavaScript and Shockwave, both of which turn many people off,
but which, as I understand it, are virtually required to properly use the
new site).
> 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.
I think so too, at least in the regard that "denominator" means to divide
something, and that "lowest common denominator" could mean dividing by the
smallest (lowest) thing in order to produce the greatest result -- similar
to the way the intent of "greatest common factor" is to produce the greatest
result.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
