Subject:
|
Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:42:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
565 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Matthew Miller writes:
> 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"...
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 subset of some domain) or does
it mean "commonly occurring denominators" (commonly seen in some larger
domain)?
Maybe you've just discovered the root of the common misconception about the
phrase "lowest common denominator." :)
Here's an example: One thing common to both of us is that we're geeks. But
in general[1], geeks aren't very common. A common denominator between us is
geekness, but geekness is not a common denominator between the set of all
people.[2]
Another interesting twist on that -- but a different way: A larger, or more
specific, common thing between us is that we're both *male* geeks. But now
if one makes the statement, "male geeks aren't very common," then that's
probably more false than it is true, given the assumptions the listener
probably makes (that "male geeks" is being compared to "all geeks" rather
than to "all people").
Oh my. So, which of the following statements is more common-English-true
than the other?
1) Male nurses are uncommon.
2) Male geeks are uncommon.
Now which of those statements is more Math-true than the other? How about
these?
- Male calico cats are uncommon.
- Male pattern baldness is uncommon.
- Male color blindness is uncommon.
- Male PVC pipe fittings are uncommon.
- Male chauvinists are uncommon.
I like the calico cats one. Male calico cats are uncommon compared to all
calico cats. Calico cats are uncommon compared to all cats. Cats themselves
are uncommon compared to all animals. Yet cats are common house pets when
compared to all animals. And calico cats are common icons of advertising in
the cat food industry. :-)
--Todd
[1] Speaking of the phrase "in general" -- that's another Great Divide
between math usage and common English usage. In math, if something (say,
a theorem or tautology) is "true in general" or "generally true," it means
universally or always true. In common English usage, however, if something
is "generally true," then of course it's only true most of the time -- but
not always.
[2] At least not in the Boolean sense of sethood.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
