Geeking : 642


Off-Topic / Geek / 642	641 \| 643

Subject:	Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.geek
Date:	Sun, 17 Oct 1999 19:48:28 GMT
Reply-To:	mattdm@mattdm+nomorespam+.org
Viewed:	563 times

Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote: > (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." I'm not sure that makes sense. By definition, all things that are in common occur the same amount -- i.e. everywhere. 'Cause otherwise, it wouldn't be common. Another possible alternative phrase might be "broadest common denominator"... -- Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
(...) Yet another definition clash -- LOL! -- this just keeps getting confusinger and confusinger. Now I'm totally confusticated. :) In common English usage, does the phrase "common denominator" mean "denominators in common" (common within some (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Message is in Reply To:

		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)

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