Talk:Fraction/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Continued fractions

I moved this section to rational number, as I believe the subject fits better in that article. Although "continued fraction" has fraction in the name, it is not an element of a quotient field and hence it is not a fraction according to the definition in this article. However, as it is a related concept I put a link to continued fraction in a See also section. If we wish to discuss generalizations of the concept of a fraction further, it would be more worthwhile to discuss quotient fields in more detail. Isheden (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Gas

USers typically call fuel gas, and express gas prices in the form $3.01⁹ per gallon —and always state that rounded down, never up. I came here to see if the fractional form ^x has a name, and if rounding ⁹ down to zero is called anything other than stupid. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your second question might be truncation. Isheden (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Truncation may also occur when a number cannot be fully represented due to memory limitations also.applies to presidential primary debates. --Pawyilee (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There once was a lady named Bridgits

Who had an abhorance of midgets

Off the end of a wharf

She once pushed a dwarf

Whose truncation reduced her to figits

Edward Gorey

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WtF (What the Font)

While searching the article, it appeared to me that the latter parts were written in TeX, about which I know very little. In the event, the text resolved itself to the way I suppose it should appear, so I'm guessing that I encountered a rare case of wiki markup initially displaying as plain text, before resolving with a little hesitation. Since I also do not know how wiki text works, or if that is even possible, I'm left to wonder if I'm losing my mind. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Try changing your math rendering settings under My preferences - Appearance - Math. Isheden (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the problem resolved itself in a few blinks of my eye. Never noticed my preferences/appearance. Though I have a similar function in my brainbox, I don't know how to reset it, nor what's best here:

 o Always render PNG
 x HTML if very simple or else PNG
 o HTML if possible or else PNG
 o Leave it as TeX (for text browsers)
 o Recommended for modern browsers
 o MathML if possible (experimental). 

The x'd-by-default choice seems to come with a lag in deciding if it's very simple, or not. Is there a similar app available for presidential primary debates? --Pawyilee (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ratio

In the introduction to this article we have:

Other uses for fractions are to represent ratios and to represent division. Thus the fraction 3/4 is also used to represent the ratio 3:4 (the ratio of the part to the whole) ...

whereas in the section of fraction in the ratio article article we have

If there are 2 oranges and 3 apples, the ratio of oranges to apples is 2:3, whereas the fraction of oranges to total fruit is 2/5.

Is this inconsistent or am I not understanding what is being said? Thanks, 114.78.2.115 (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The point you raise has been discussed several times in the past and I think we need to sort out this issue once and for all. The article lead should not contain anything that is not mentioned in the article, so the representation of ratios should be discussed in more detail further down. Isheden (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to address this. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Powers of fractions

While i know the theory and how to prove it, i'm surprised that i cannot find any article in Wikipedia (either on fractions or on exponentiation) that states the equivalence: (p/q)^x = p^x / q^x... Would a section on this, appearing after the #Multiplication of fractions, be feasible? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think so. Also, this should be in the article distributive property, exponents distribute over multiplication and division. That article, which begins with an example of what not to do, I currently in bad shape. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad link

I don't know why the history section has a See Also pointing to the History of Irrational Numbers. This article is on fractions, not irrational numbers. 50.74.174.58 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Fractional Digits

A fractional digit number system is similar to a binary digit number system in that it is used to represent numbers in forms different from common use. With a fractional digit number system, digits normally written as whole numbers can be written as fractions. Parenthesis are often used to distinguish a fractional digit within a number. Fractional digits involve both a base and a step (sometimes called a degree). The step is the finite quantity a number must increase for a digit to change to another digit, and the base is the quantity of steps required for an additional digit to be added to the number. The higher a base is, the more unique characters are required to represent a digit in a number. The base must always be a larger quantity than the step and the step must divide the base evenly. Numbers in a fractional digit number system can be represented by a base that's between zero and one (a fractional base) provided that the step divides the base evenly.

Counting in the Fractional Digit Number System

The first thing to do in any kind of counting is to choose what amount to count by. Counting can be done by twos, threes, hundreds, or even halves. The amount chosen to count by would be the step. Next a base must be chosen. When the number of steps in a digit increases enough to equal the quantity of the base, an additional digit must be added for counting to continue. For fractional digits to occur, the step must be less than one. There are limitless ways to count using fractional digits. Below is one example.

Counting with base 3/2 step 1/2 gives the following sequence, where each number is separated by a comma, and certain digits within a number are separated by parenthesis:

0, 1/2, 1, (1/2)0, (1/2)(1/2), (1/2)1, 10, 1(1/2), 11, (1/2)00, (1/2)0(1/2), (1/2)01, (1/2)(1/2)0, (1/2)(1/2)(1/2), (1/2)(1/2)1, (1/2)10, (1/2)1(1/2), (1/2)11, 100...

This sequence translates to the more familiar quantities:

0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9....

So the number two in the familiar base ten step one system is written in the base 3/2 step 1/2 system as (1/2)(1/2). And the number four would translate to 11. Four and a half (4.5) would be represented as (1/2)00, and nine would be 100.

Conversion to Base 10

A number with base n and step m that has digits A,B,C,D,E, etc. where the digits progress from right to left with A being the rightmost digit, can be converted to a familiar base ten number by this formula:

A*(n/m)^0 + B*(n/m)^1+ C*(n/m)^2+ D*(n/m)^3......

Distinctions Between Mixed Fractions, Improper Fractions, and Fractional Digits in a Fractional Digit Number System

Fractional digits in a fractional digit number system should not be confused with traditional fractional notations such as mixed and improper fractions. Unlike traditional fractional notations, numbers in a fractional digit number system can have multiple digits with a consistent base and step throughout the entire number. Mixed fractions have a whole number digit that has a different base and step than the fractional digit, and improper fractions cannot go beyond a single fractional digit.

Applications

To date, there are no known applications for fractional digits, as they are an exercise in pure mathematics. It has been suggested that they have potential application in the field of encryption.

History

The earliest form of a fractional digit number system that differs from traditional fractional notation can be found in a youtube video where an eccentric cartoon alligator directly explains the concept. It was uploaded on October 2nd, 2010 and can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTtyCy9hxsU

theboombody Theboombody (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of this concept might fit better at Talk:Non-standard positional numeral systems. Before including it in an article you need to check if there are any reliable sources for fractional digit numeral systems, since original research should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Isheden (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Redundant sections

The Naming section & the Pronunciation and spelling section are somewhat redundant, though both are also somewhat incomplete. Neither has sourcing, though there is little to be challenged -- except the minus/negative terminology.--JimWae (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. They have little to do with mathematics, the topic of the article. Since this kind of common sense is not discussed in mathematics textbooks, it will be difficult to provide sources. I suggest moving it to fraction and move the disambiguation part of the present article fraction to fraction (disambiguation). Isheden (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Most science and math articles say something about how words are used. I don't see how it does any harm, and some people may find it useful. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, but a few sentences in the subsection on common fractions should be enough to clarify this. It is disproportionate in a mathematics article to have two full sections dedicated to "Naming" and "Pronunciation and spelling". Isheden (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the sub-subsection "Writing simple fractions" is also a bit out of place at least in the beginning of the article. Perhaps all topics that are not clearly related to mathematics could be moved to a separate section towards the end of the article? Isheden (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia Manuel of Style (Mathematics): "The articles should be accessible, as much as possible, to readers not already familiar with the subject matter. Notations that are not entirely standard should be properly introduced and explained." Rick Norwood (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Do notes on how fractions are used in typography and how they are printed in scientific literature really make the article more accessible to the typical reader of this article? Isheden (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Poets are people who think seriously about death and commas. Mathematicians think seriously about commas. All kidding aside, I'm fascinated by the nicities of mathematical typography and nomenclature. I suspect I'm not alone. In discussions such as this one, I usually come down on the side of more information rather than less. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I restructured the article somewhat while keeping all information in it, just presenting the stuff in slightly different order. Feel free to change it further as you see fit. Perhaps the sentences from "Naming" should rather be moved to the lead section? Isheden (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Good edit, Isheden.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I moved some stuff around too. There was quite a bit in common fractions that was not specific to that topic. I also added to the section on common/simple fractions. Much of what is still in Pronunciation and spelling section has now been copied to a new Vocabulary section (for want of a better term). I think it makes sense to have this (vocabulary) presented fairly early-on (since it is so elementary), but the text in the Pronunciation and spelling section is much more complete & I would prefer to move more of it up higher & thus also remove some redundancy.--JimWae (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've merged the two sections. Isheden (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Negative fraction

Would "-3⁄4" be spoken as "minus three-quarters", "negative three-quarters", or either? I have always used "minus", and have never noticed anyone to use anything different. It's difficult to remember such an unmemorable point, but I think this has mostly come up as an exponent in my personal experience, e.g., "x to the minus two-thirds". I've reverted a change; it's "minus" again, not "negative", but would like a consensus, I may be wrong. Pol098 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to restore Jim Wae's version. "Minus" is a binary operation, meaning subtraction. You read 7 - 2 as "seven minus two". But "negative" means "less than zero". Since -3/2 is less than zero, but does not involve subtraction, Jim Wae is correct. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's leave the article with "negative". But I remain curious for myself; regardless of what is considered as formally correct language, among people who use mathematics (e.g., theoretical physicists, rather than teachers), do most speak of "minus three-quarters", "negative three-quarters"? Have I been misspeaking all these years? Pol098 (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

While I’m not a native speaker, I’m a mathematician, and this is the first time I’ve heard of this distinction. I’ve consulted several dictionaries, and all of them include the usage of “minus” for negation, even giving explicit examples like “minus five degrees” or “subtract ten from seven and the answer is minus three”.—Emil J. 11:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The symbol is called minus sign and in this case it is used to mean a negative number. So I'd say if you're referring to the sign in front of the number, it's called minus, whereas if you're referring to the number as such, it's "negative". The minus sign is used both as binary operator for subtraction and as unary operator for negation. Isheden (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

So, if I understand right what you are saying: the correct usage is “the negative number minus three quarters”, whereas “negative three quarters” is a contradictio in adiecto as 3/4 is in fact positive.—Emil J. 13:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess neither is wrong. It boils down to whether you view - as the mathematical symbol "minus" or as the unary operator "negative". "Negative" might be considered more specific since it rules out the operation of subtraction. Isheden (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion has become about what is "correct" n some sense. It's highly relevant to note what is actually used; if you go to a conference or lecture involving people working with applied mathematics (in physics, for example), what will you actually hear? Ultimately that's highly relevant for an encyclopaedia that's recording what happens, not laying down the law. Pol098 (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I hear both. My own preference would be to call -3/4 the opposite of three fourths, but that ain't gonna happen. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't ${\tfrac {-8}{5}}$ usually written $-{\tfrac {8}{5}}$? Bo Jacoby (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC).

Yes, unless the point is to emphasize that the fraction is used to mean -8 divided by 5. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I will remove the example from the lead. Bo Jacoby (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC).

Policy

Please note, I don't necessarily agree with the United States' CCSSM definition of fraction. However, that's what it is. And it is what United States schools will be teaching to students.

The disagreements that the CCSSM definition poses to the content in this article is as follows:

• fractions cannot be negative
• fractions are strictly "expressible" in a/b form where a is a whole number and b is a positive whole number.

Under the CCSSM definition: 0.3 is a fraction but -0.3 is not a fraction. Both are rational numbers.

The policy document uses ${\tfrac {\sqrt {2}}{2}}$ and ${\tfrac {\pi }{2}}$, but these are called "expressions." They are never called "fractions" or "fractional forms" in the policy document.

Again, I wouldn't change the body of this article. I just think the nuances of educational policy need to be noted somewhere. Thelema418 (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The CCSSM does not say that fractions cannot be negative. In fact, the quote in the article explicitly states that a fraction can be expressed in the form a/b where a is a whole number and b is a positive whole number. This allows fractions to be negative or zero. If they had intended fractions to always be positive, they would have said "a and b are positive whole numbers". The parenthetical remark has nothing to do with what fractions "are". It has to do with the kinds of fractions they talk about in their document, positive fractions, which pedagogically usually come before negative numbers. In other words, it is a pedagogical statement, and one that only refers to the document in question, not a mathematical statement. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note, the CCSSM glossary states whole numbers are non-negative. This is a definition in a major policy document, supported by mathematicians like H. Wu (who is cited in the present article). This definition, and others like it, need to appear in a section about pedagogy of fractions because it is a different realm than mathematical research. Thelema418 (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If it is "policy" (which there is no indication it is) it is so only for a number of states in the US, and is part-of-US-specific. The glossary indeed speaks of positive fractions and negative fractions, so at the very least is inconsistent if it indeed (needlessly) claims that all fractions are positive. The entry has little relevance to the article except as a supposed dispute over definition. An "initiative" is not an mathematical paper & has no authority to redefine what a fraction is, especially not an initiative that is self-contradictory. Mostly, the entry is not international & mostly irrelevant to the article. Additionally, as pointed out above, whole numbers can include negative integers, though the term whole number is quite imprecise and does not serve to clarify anything. As a retired educator, I have several times encountered terms in educational documents that are simplistically defined in their glossaries only for the purposes of the document (it says "The word fraction in these standards always refers to a non-negative number") or only to establish guidelines for sequencing in teaching. Also, glossaries are often last edited by someone with a POV to push - such as that s/he is more erudite than others. All rational numbers are expressible as a simple fraction, but compound fractions & decimal fractions are also expressible as simple fractions, and it is often overlooked that not all fractions need be (expressible as) simple fractions (ie rational). To say that pi/4 is not a fraction is a needless, artificial distinction that only needlessly complicates pedagogy. I can find nowhere in the document where teachers are directed to ever touch in class on the definition of a fraction - which is, fortunately, just as well. How would students be getting better prepared for anything by being made to distinguish solving sqrt(12)/5 * sqrt (3)/7 from solving 12/5 * 3/7 ? --JimWae (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that the CCSSM has clear definitions for whole number in the document. It clearly states that fractions are not negative; this is not my interpretation, that is verbatim. Today I looked at a textbook series that was recently published for alignment to the CCSSM: it uses the "fractions are not negative" definition in the resource book. Again, this is a definition that educational policymakers intend to have used in the classrooms.

It seems rather odd that the article has pedagogical tools listed, but not a single remark about the definitions of fractions that teachers are expected to use. Thelema418 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you do not like the word policy, you can change it to another term. Thelema418 (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. It is up to you to find support for your additions. So far there are 2 against your addition, none but you for it. Repeatedly inserting it without support is edit warring. It is not up to me to "fix" this mostly irrelevant & less than US-centric addition. If you don't understand why that is an objection, consider that wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not a US one. Additionally, their idiosyncratic, wayward "definitions" have no impact on what happens in the classroom & thus have no pedagogical impact. The terms are defined only for the document itself. There is nothing in it about teaching any definitions to kids. Besides that, the document is self-contradictory.--JimWae (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the way Thelema418 has stated it in the most recent version, in a parenthetical remark that makes it clear the subject is how this government document uses the word, not how mathematicians use the word, is ok. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That is an improvement, but on what grounds does such a silly definition, contradicted by other text in the document, merit inclusion in the article - except as a point of embarrassment for anyone involved in its production? The definitions given just seem to be the result of oversimplification & "dumbing down" so that teachers with little mathematical background can find a way to "relate" to the material.--JimWae (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you been following the "math wars"? Essentially, people with math ed degrees demand to be treated as the equal of those with degrees in mathematics, only many of them are very weak both in math and in education. Still, the document exists, it says what it says, and it is apt to be very influential for years to come. There was an article I read somewhere (Notices of the AMS?) written by one of the mathematicians who worked on the standards, which said that he fought the good fight, that compromise was necessary, and that we have to accept the document as is. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Easy way to teach Fractions to Young Children using Lego Bricks

This idea was suggested on Reddit: • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1qrdcl/easy_way_to_teach_fractions_using_legos_to/
• http://i.imgur.com/rcmuzak.jpg (not a very good photo + photoshop used to swap bricks, but still a good teaching concept)

References

Just to get these archived. Purgy (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Fuel pricing — and TeX

Just to get these archived. Purgy (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Basic fraction conversion

Every student should know how to change between fractions, decimals, and percents. Some of these changes are so common that they are worth memorizing, such as 1/2 = 0.5. But the long list in the article obscures which conversions are most important, and which of the infinitely many other conversions should be carried out as needed. I propose to shorten the list, but wanted to discuss that here first. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not refer exactly to the mentioned above matter, but to the headline of this section in your version

A fraction can be converted into other forms which have the same numerical value, including decimals, percents, and other fractions.

Considering the conversion of "1/3" to "0.333..." I conceive a broad hint to reinsert the concept of representing a number instead of having a numerical value. Taking into account that the same number represented by 1/3(decimal) might be converted to say 0:1 in a positional numbering system with base 3(decimal), the ":" representing the ternary point these perception gets even stronger. In a strict math sense already a rational number is an infinite equivalence class of objects, usually represented by some proxy. I will not take care of this anyhow.

Strictly on topic, I'm with Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) to delete rather more than less of these lines (see reverted edits for not interesting). Purgy (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the entire section should be removed. Wikipedia is not a place to present tables of numeric values or a thing to substitute for a calculator. This section does not explain conversion, just presents a table of some particular values -- pointless cluttering of the article. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

'Fourth' vs 'quarter'

The illustration of a cake cut into 3/4 describes it as 'three fourths'. Is this correct as opposed to 'three quarters'?

I may be wrong, but isn't it only North America that uses 'fourth' as opposed to 'quarter'? groovygower (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As a Maths teacher in Australia, I'll agree that "three quarters" is far more common, but I do point out to my students that it means exactly the same things as "three fourths". HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I was originally the one who specified the "three-fourths" for that pie. In my classes (known locally as math and not maths) we would often say "fourths" in context of numeric discussion. But nary a soul would even bother to lodge a complaint with "quarters" for most fractions less than 5/4. We have a unit of currency known widely as the "quarter" (dollar) that makes this use obvious. But if I would have to guess, the usage might be split unevenly toward the "quarter" in everyday speech, and unevenly toward the "fourth" in math class. A typical pie or pizza or inch would be quartered, while a measuring cup or a bare fraction is often in fourths. Larger improper fractions (e.g. 11/4) is almost always in fourths. I like to saw logs! (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining, if I was I would have edited it - just curious. I'm guessing it's an American English thing. As most of the English spoken in the world is American English, I guess it makes more sense to keep it. groovygower (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of the English spoken in the world is American English? Checked out India lately? HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I also think that non-native English speakers will understand "fourths" easier at first blush than "quarters." I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Apoorva Goel version

I agree that Cluebot was wrong to revert Apoorva Goel's rewrite. But Apoorva Goel was wrong to call the version which has been fairly stable for many years "rubbish". I think the earlier version better. They are compared below, line by line, with a minus on the earlier version and a plus on the Apoorva Goel version. I've indented my comments.

− A fraction (from Latin: fractus, "broken") represents a part of a whole or, more generally, any number of equal parts. When spoken in everyday English, a fraction describes how many parts of a certain size there are, for example, one-half, eight-fifths, three-quarters.

+ A fraction (from Latin: fractus, "broken") represents equal parts of a whole number. When spoken in everyday English, a fraction describes how many parts of a certain size there are, for example, one-half, four-eighths, three-quarters.

>>>>>"equal parts of a whole" is better than "equal parts of a whole number" because a fraction can represent equal parts of a pie, it is not limited to equal parts of a number. "eight-fifths" is better than four_eighths" because it is an "improper" fraction. I would have no objection to both.

- A common, vulgar, or simple fraction (examples: ${\tfrac {1}{2}}$ and 17/3) consists of an integer numerator, displayed above a line (or before a slash), and a non-zero integer denominator, displayed below (or after) that line.

+ A simple fraction (examples: ${\tfrac {1}{2}}$ and 17/3) consists of a numerator, displayed above a line or before a slash and a denominator, displayed below that line or after that slash.

>>>>>All three words are standard; "vulgar" is somewhat obsolete but is found in older books and there is no harm in including it. That the numerator and denominator of a simple fraction are integers is essential, it is what makes the difference between a simple fraction and a complex fraction.

- Numerators and denominators are also used in fractions that are not common, including compound fractions, complex fractions, and mixed numerals.

+ Numerators and denominators are also used in fractions that are not common, including compound fractions, complex fractions, and mixed numerals.

>>>>>No major difference here, but I slightly prefer to italicize the important word.

− Fractional numbers can also be written without using explicit numerators or denominators, by using decimals, percent signs, or negative exponents (as in 0.01, 1%, and 10⁻² respectively, all of which are equivalent to 1/100). An integer such as the number 7 can be thought of as having an implicit denominator of one: 7 equals 7/1.

+ Fractional numbers can also be written without using numerators or denominators, by using decimals or percent signs.

>>>>>The change removes an important concept, that of the "understood" denominator. The word "denominator" does not just mean "the bottom of a fraction", rather it is the name of the number of parts that make up a whole. Thus a percent has an understood denominator of 100.

- Other uses for fractions are to represent ratios and to represent division. Thus the fraction 3/4 is also used to represent the ratio 3:4 (the ratio of the part to the whole) and the division 3 ÷ 4 (three divided by four).

+ Other uses for fractions are to represent ratios. Thus the fraction 3/4 is also used to represent the ratio 3:4 (the ratio of the part to the whole) and the division 3 ÷ 4 (three divided by four).

>>>>>The use of fractions to represent division is widespread, and to remove the word "division" while keeping the example is inconsistent.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

From the reasons given above any person capable of comprehending reading can derive, why this version has been stable for many years.

Congrats to Wikipedia for its night-watchmen, detecting each fire before it's burning hot. Purgy (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Anomalocaris's edit

Thanks for an excellent edit. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Placement of history section

Raguks has attempted to put the history section at the top of the page and has now been reverted at least twice. His argument seems to be that there are some pages that have the history section placed there, so this one should be! The tone of one of his edit summaries indicates to me that there is something else motivating him, but I shall not speculate on that. While it is true that there are some math pages that have a history section placed high in the article, this is certainly not universal nor any type of requirement. There are many reasons for placing sections where they are, but in my mind the most important has to do with the nature of the article and who the intended audience is. In articles dealing with elementary topics the readers are looking for clear and simple explanations of what the objects are and how they are to be manipulated. How these things are used is of vital importance. An interest in the history comes in as a low priority because it does not help with the fundamental issues that bring readers to the page. In different areas this may not be the case. For a more abstract topic, such as Algebra, the historical perspective helps to understand how and why the abstraction was necessary, and so, should come early in the article. There is no "one size fits all" rule for section placement and one must judge each article on its own merits. I stand by my revert and wish that this section be placed back where it belongs. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Shall we see what is motivating you to write a lengthy explanation about placement? I won't speculate on that either! But I am quite sure it is something else! Why is "how and why the abstraction was necessary" for fraction isn't important? Or do you claim there was no "abstraction" necessary to invent fractions? I do not have time for this. But should be enough to lead to that "something else". I will let you decide what size fits this one. Be happy.

~rAGU (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fraction (mathematics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011215017/http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Fraction.html to http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Fraction.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

order of operations ambiguity in complex fractions

The article points out that notation such as x/y/z/w is ambiguous, or even "improperly formed". This obviously goes just as well for complex fractions such as ${\frac {\frac {x}{y}}{\frac {z}{w}}}$, but not ${\frac {{\frac {x}{y}}+1}{{\frac {z}{w}}-1}}$. I would like to stress that the possible excuse that the middle fraction line is a bit longer and/or thicker is not good: there is no way to guarantee or even hope for this in clients, especially given all the math display options users have. I propose we replace complex fractions such as

${\frac {\frac {x}{y}}{\frac {z}{w}}}$

with unambiguous representations such as

${\frac {\left({\frac {x}{y}}\right)}{\left({\frac {z}{w}}\right)}}$ or ${\frac {x}{y}}\div {\frac {z}{w}}$

melikamp (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with you on notations like "x/y/z/w" being not well formed, at least as long as "/" denotes a non-associative binary operation. This in part may be even resulting in abstract algebra turning its back on division and subtraction as far as arithmetic is concerned. Nevertheless, I accept the excuse of the longer middle line, the position of an "=" (see in continued fractions), and many other layout options, justifying optically and conceptually pleasing representations, which hint to their intended meaning with sufficient precision. So I prefer for obvious clarity a notation like

$\dots ={\frac {\frac {x}{y}}{\frac {z}{w}}}=\cdots \quad$ and even $\quad \dots ={\frac {x/y}{z/w}}=\cdots \quad$

to superfluous parentheses and to the use of the $\div$, extremely rare in math, like in

${\frac {\left({\frac {x}{y}}\right)}{\left({\frac {z}{w}}\right)}}\quad$ or in $\quad {\frac {x}{y}}\div {\frac {z}{w}}$

I believe that in cases where strict unambiguity is of concern the infix notation is preferably dropped in favour of some pre/postfix notation for the involved operations with fixed arity. Purgy (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Purgy. There are a number of infelicities in standard mathematical notation, but Wikipedia is not the place to try to make new rules. The general advice to avoid ambiguity is as far as we can go, unless a reputable reference can be found. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Another point of viewing numbers

It was not me, who introduced "numeral" in bold in the first sentence after the heading stating "number", but, since I firmly stick to the opinion that WP's math articles, while trying to be accessible as possible, should in no case and never ever support sloppy terminology, I do support this precision and confirmed this by putting "number" under scare quotes in the heading. So, yes, I am ready to consider fractions as numbers, but I will not change considering "mixed numerals" as sooo far away a notation from numbers that I deny them this coinage.

Another point is the view on improper fractions (they deserve the courtesy of being called numbers) as "an other way" (not "just another way") of denoting such numbers, with respect to mixed numerals. Of course, I won't battle over any of these topics. Having been repressed for natural numbers not knowing about either neutrals struck me heavier, by far. :) Purgy (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You called the use of "mixed numbers" "sectional" which I assumes means "local". Are there places where they are not used? I'm asking -- I do not know the answer. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Local" is not the precise meaning, which I had in mind, but I certainly felt my weak fundamentals in the English language, when I searched my mind for a word, suiting to my intentions. I think mixed numerals have a peak appearance in most first curricula on fractions. Teachers spread and emphasize their use for their plethora of opportunities for rote drill. So this is THE primary ONE section, where this notions is anchored in. Another section is the lazy way of talking about things in a roughly and approximate way ("two and a half" and not "2 point five") in everyday life. I claim, that in this section the use of this notion is overwhelmingly verbal, as in stark contrast to the formal and written use by the eds. No grownup, besides an ed, would use "mixed numerals" in their written communication, and be it just for the typographical difficulties in denoting a fraction. I claim also that LaTeX is a minority program. Another section might be group of people, who believe that their laziness of avoiding to write a "+", is advantageous for explaining things involving parts to others. Still another section might be plumbing, where they use 1/2"-, and 1and1/2"-wrenches (see, I have problems!), at least in my country. From another point of view, I'd say the section of "spoken" language, in contrast to sections in the "written" language, is a section along my intention.

Well, I tried to make some "sections" more explicit. "Primary education in fractions" is certainly the biggest "section" in my view, but "local" is certainly not the intended predicate. I would be thankful for any word, which is spot on to my intentions. I certainly do not want to write "traditionally in school." Purgy (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The only mixed numbers I ever recall seeing in real life involves halves, thirds, and quarters. In algebra, though, the use of the same technique to change an improper algebraic fraction to a quotient and remainder, to find a horizontal or slanting asymptote, is important. I'll give finding a word for your "region" some thought. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

My experience extends to 1/16", perhaps, because this is in the range of "mils"(sic!). ;) I absolutely avoid calling something "algebra" that involves mixed numerals for the sum of "proper" and "improper" (two additional notions totally useless superfluous outside of elementary torture, won't "< 1" do?) fractions and integers in its application, but, yes, your claim conforms to my statement that it's teachers, who keep this misleading notion alive in written form, and who won't let go of this silly opportunity for generating test problems. BTW, I consider "asymptotic" as asymptotic to my notion of algebra.

Thank you for thinking about my problem, "regional tradition", certainly does not fit better than "sectional" to the factual setting. Purgy (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Manifest dislike

I am obviously intellectually challenged to a degree that does not allow me to like the given method of comparing fractions with equal denominators by just looking at their enumerators.

Let there be fractions $A_{i}={\tfrac {a}{d_{i}}}$ and $B_{i}={\tfrac {b}{d_{i}}}$ for $i\in \{1,\;2\}$, and fix $a=-1,\;b=1,\;d_{1}=-1,\;d_{2}=1,\quad$ then the following relations (comparisons) hold

$a<b,\quad A_{1}={\tfrac {-1}{-1}}>{\tfrac {1}{-1}}=B_{1},\quad A_{2}={\tfrac {-1}{1}}<{\tfrac {1}{1}}=B_{2}$

To me this makes obvious that comparing pairs of fractions with correspondingly equal enumerators and pairwise equal denominators yields different results, and is therefore not independent of these respective denominators. The independence is granted for denominators with equal sign, and comparing the fractions yields the same result as comparing the enumerators only in case of positive denominators, imho. Taking cumbersome care of the signs in the rest of this chapter does not justify the sloppy formulated claim at the top.

My range of understanding is, however, distorted to a degree that lets me -prima vista- take the parenthesis of me not understanding this as an intended, sublime, personal offense, which I do not want to pursue any further in this her setting. OMG, it's WP and E&OE. Purgy (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how this is sloppy: "Comparing fractions with the same denominator only requires comparing the numerators." The phrase "the same denominator" implies "denominators with equal sign". - DVdm (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I've restored Purgy Purgatorio's correct version. A simpler example that Purgy's: $2<3,{\tfrac {2}{-1}}>{\tfrac {3}{-1}}$. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The statement says something about comparing, not about ordering and keeping the order, or taking over the order of the numerators to the fractions. It just correctly said something about comparing. There was nothing wrong or incomplete with it. You are just putting something in it, that wasn't meant to be in there. But now it is de-facto in there. It was complete, and adding the word, makes it incomplete now . - DVdm (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I implicitly structured the chapter about "comparing fractions" in

1. fractions with equal denominators
   1. equal pos. den's
   2. equal neg. den's
2. pos. fractions with unequal den's
3. fractions with different signs

I thereby made obsolete the misleading use of the notion "compare" as far as unifying the logically negated notions of < and > is concerned.

Improve to your likings. Purgy (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Explanation actually is a helpful thing

(Yeah, my choice of subject is equal parts challenging and self-deprecating.)

A pair of edits I recently made has been reverted by User:Purgy_Purgatorio with the comment that they constituted but a "dubious improvement." His opinion—to which he is completely entitled—is of course an opinion and stands in contrast to my own. I would not have bothered to make the edits if I did not consider them a significant improvement. Here's my perspective...

1. The terms numerator and denominator are among those pieces of the mathematical lexicon that lots of people have a hard time even remembering, let alone distinguishing. This is why many people refer instead to a fraction's "top" and "bottom." Even this article includes several occurrences of that usage. To be sure, there's no great crime in the labels top and bottom. But their single benefit—their direct reference to the spatial locations within fractions' canonical typographic representation—is more than outweighed by their utter silence about the actual mathematical meaning of what's going on. Admittedly, very few of us ever even stop to wonder, "Hmm, why should that top number be called the 'numerator,' and what's so 'denominator' about the bottom number?" But that's a great shame, because learning what those two labels are saying tells one a lot about the meaning of the concept of fraction. And furthermore, the discussion that I had added was in the section of the article titled "Vocabulary."

As yet one more consideration, for those who do come to Wikipedia to learn about the labels numerator and denominator, both of them are redirects to... this article. So there is no better place in Wikipedia for that explanation than right here.

2. The other edit I made provides an explanation of why the addition of fractions requires that they have a common denominator. Far too many people labor under the misimpression that math is just a set of cookbook instructions to follow in computing things, that those instructions simply are what they are, and that one should memorize them, apply them rotely, and by no means think very much about the matter. This edit was aimed at those who are unaccustomed to understanding why an algorithm would have you do this instead of that, but also at those who already know there's some reason and desire to understand what that reason is. Similarly, the earlier version to which Purgy_Purgatorio has reverted instructs one to (in its example) "convert both quarters and thirds to twelfths," the demonstration of which includes, of course, two instances of multiply-top-and-bottom-by-the-same-thing. My edit preceded that demonstration by explicitly (a) warning readers that the converting would involve multiplying by things of the form n/n and (b) pointing out that doing so doesn't irreparably alter anything. My additions were aimed at those who are either uncomfortable or even unacquainted with algebra, but nonetheless have come across the addition of fractions.

I invite Purgy_Purgatorio and any other editors to share contrary perspectives, but in doing so please be more specific than, "Those are dubious improvements."—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought that I should throw my two cents worth in before Purgy responds (as I am sure he will). I am also concerned about the additions that were removed. The content was good and the intention was admirable, but the presentation was a bit too textbook-ish for WP. I realize that the distinction between a textbook presentation and an encyclopedic presentation gets a little blurry in articles that deal with very basic concepts. It is hard to, as Jack Webb would say, "present the facts, ma'am, and only the facts", when the expected readership is assumed to be having trouble understanding the fundamentals. However, this is the standard that we must strive towards. Explanations, such as those you have given, and no matter how good they are, are only acceptable if they can be found in reliable secondary sources. The alternative to this would pit one editor against another in deciding which is the better explanation; an unacceptable state of affairs for WP. I think the intent of what you wrote can be salvaged, but it needs to be reworked and sourced to be included. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@PaulTanenbaum, please do not perceive the terse formulation in the edit summary as rebuffing. I should have written "no warranted" instead of dubious improvement. I fully support your intentions of explaining things, and I put aside the RS-beagle, but here are my objections to your 1. part of the edit:

- starting anew with "a fraction as quantifying some object" in the paragraph "Vocabulary" repeats the efforts of the lead to introduce this notion.

- Your analogy of a multitude of apples foils the efforts of introducing the denominator as giving the "number of parts of a whole".

- Your view of introducing the "Egyptian" fraction 1/5 that is multiplied by the numerator is valid, but in contrast not only to your own story of "whole" (bad analogy) apples, but also to the story sketched in the lead.

- The section "Vocabulary" is targeting the different vocabulary for referring to already established notions and is not intended to supply additional pictures of the meaning of the fundamental notions.

My personal preference is to keep the stable version (even though I dislike it), which already includes efforts to explain the notions under scrutiny, and I do not encourage the development of ever new heuristics in the course of the article. This is not to exclude whatever consensual improvements the future may bring.

As for your second part of the edits, you wade into deep waters, I would avoid even at a high price. The problems of concurrently dealing with pure numbers and units belonging to them (essentially making them measurements), and their coherent equations (see dimensional analysis) lead away from the task of making the denominators equal, while upholding the values of the fractions by multiplying them with a unity. Yes, I oppose strongly to involve units, them being an additional problem (just think of the "units" of the "conversion factors") in the task of "explaining" things. Note, that also you(!) do not explain (this is heaven-sent???), why mils can't be added to inches (units are no additive algebra???). In fact, you can add denominators and numerators to get the meaningful mediant (mathematics). So also in this case I plead for upholding the status quo in favour of introducing new troubles under a rug.

Certainly, one can always change the paradigms in the explanations, but just another analogy is not enough to make me change horses, especially not, when I see no substantial advantage. There are already heuristic efforts to introduce the relevant notions, and adding just others is no warranted improvement. In encyclopedic context within math articles I favour those which firstly manage to understandably purport rigid properties, without employing dreaded analogies, and only afterwards give examples of how easily these properties fit to a real world. The other way round may be the silver bullet for introductory textbooks and impure mathematicians. ;)

Of course, I do not fight for this article, I just have stated my valuation and will watch any further comments. BTW, I definitely would raise the same arguments, if your heuristics were reliably sourced, I'm still no WPian to bone and marrow. Purgy (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful responses; I think I now have a decent sense of the concerns about my edits.

Bill Cherowitzo, I'm familiar with and appreciate the challenge of balancing between, say, WP:ONEDOWN and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. As to including a source, that's not a problem.

Purgy, in the first place it was careless of me not to have seen that I could have better integrated my explanation of numerator and denominator into the existing text. I've now done that, placing a better and tighter version right into the first sentence, where it belongs. This has also made it possible to refine the redirects so they link directly to this section rather than to the overall article, thus achieving WP:R#PLA. I'll do that shortly.

As to my edits in the section about addition, I share your concerns about units. Indeed I'd wrestled with that issue myself. In any event, though, I'm also guilty of a second count of carelessness. I failed to consider that common denominators are just as important in comparing fractions as in adding them, and for the same reason. So any clarification of the kind I intended ought to be factored out of either subsection, just as the discussion of equivalence is already separate from—and prior to—both. I might take a whack at that later.

By the way, you raise the issue of whether millimeters can in fact be added to inches. I offer two responses. First, the article already said, continued saying after my edit, and still says after your own reversion, "The first rule of addition is that only like quantities can be added," and "it is necessary to convert all amounts to like quantities." So I don't see that I can be asked to bear all the responsibility for introducing the notion. Also, I find your remark about mediants unconvincing, since the corresponding process isn't even a well-defined operation on the rationals, but rather on Z².

—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Paul, your recent edit is pretty much exactly what I would have suggested had I gotten around to making a suggestion. I support this change and even have another reference should it be needed. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dissenting opinion: Your ideas on improving this article are fine, I fully agree to your intentions (explaining notions, factoring out common definitions, ...), but I miss a substantial improvement compared to the previous approach, to the contrary, you lose the important hint that the denominator gives (in the case of natural numbers!) the legendary "number of the parts of a whole" (the unity!, later on important for "equal denominators"), which is a fundamental aspect in the elementary treatment of fractions. Instead you introduce two new tasks, which are to be fulfilled by the denominator: they are to give a "type" or a "variety". Whatever this may be. Aren't there not enough meagerly defined terms around, already? Furthermore, you still insist on re-defining, no, re-verbalizing the notions, already introduced in the lead, further diluting these meager definitions. Then you introduce a new numerical example in the "Vocabulary" section, instead of confirming or deepening the use of the one introduced before in the lead section. Imho, this "Vocabulary" section should not contain new descriptions of already circumscribed notions and examples thereof, but variants of names for already introduced notions, and perhaps examples for these variants. So here could be the place for talking about the notions of "top/bottom", you referred to elsewhere, and other synonyma, but not for a re-defining. I would not object to bolding numerator and denominator in the lead, but I object to any additional pseudo-definition.

In my opinion there is no chance for a rigid definition of "fraction" at the level of this article at the beginning, but I oppose to further blurring the meager attempts.

It's of no importance, that I never talked about rationals in connection with mediants (I'm not sure if the equivalence classes do not tolerate this), that I explicitly mentioned to dislike the state of this article, and that I never claimed it would contain no suboptimalities, besides those introduced by your edits, for which you do have to take responsibility yourself. Because of the consent by Bill Cherowitzo I will not touch your edits, but let me plead that you have a look at my arguments. Good luck. Purgy (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I made some technical changes to your latest edit, to avoid confusion about the word "rational" and to make a distinction between polynomials over the integers and polynomials over the reals. There is still a problem that I did not raise. The multiplicative inverse of 3 is not, of course, a polynomial over the integers. But it is the quotient of (constant) polynomials over the integers, which is what makes the rational expressions a field. But I decided that was a bridge too far for this elementary article.

I share you dislike of PaulTanenbaum's edit for the same reasons you do: we don't need vague words such as "type" and "variety", which have precise mathematical meanings, while as used in the rewrite they have no meanings at all. PaulTanenbaum, I appreciate your desire to improve the article, but it does not seem to me that your rewrite accomplishes what you set out to accomplish. Writing clearly about elementary mathematics is difficult. In a way, the more elementary the mathematics, the harder it is to express it clearly in a way that a beginner can understand. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Since there is some concern about the modification that I supported, let me be explicit about what I was thinking of and decided that I didn't need to pursue.

The terms numerator and denominator were introduced by medieval Latin scholars to explain the form of fractions that appeared in the Arabic texts they were translating. The denominator (namer) gave the name of the number of equal parts that a whole was divided into. So, for example, a denominator of 4 indicates that there are four equal pieces, each one of which is one-fourth of a whole. The numerator then counts (numbers) the number of these equal pieces. Other terms have been used to describe the numbers that appear on the top and bottom of a fraction, but these Latin terms have endured for centuries.

This passage can be cited to D.E. Smith, History of Mathematics, Vol. 2, Dover, p. 220. I wasn't sure about the historical approach being appropriate, but I did feel that giving some modern meaning to these Latin terms would be useful. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis's reversion

There was a reason for Purgy's rewrite of the lead. A positive or zero numerator represents a number of equal parts. A negative numerator represents an opposite. We need to deal with this in some way, since the way fractions are defined -(3/4) = (-3)/4 = 3/(-4). It would make more sense to always put the negative on the entire fraction instead of just on the numerator or just on the denominator, but we Wikipedians have to live with the world as it is, not in the ideal world as we might like it to be. I agree, though, that Purgy's rewrite makes the lead less clear. Let's all think about it, and see what we can come up with that will be both clear and accurate. One possibility would be to start with fractions with non-negative numerators and denominators and then extend the concept to fractions with signs. I'm going to try that. Let me know what you think. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for attesting me reasons for my edits, and also thanks for touching my objections against negative numbers representing a number of equal parts, and indicating, how many of those parts make up a unit or a whole. However, my trigger event is still there, I strongly dislike the apodictic rubbish about a denominator, which cannot be zero (bolding mine), with the finesse of linking itself to a full blown article about this that cannot be. I wish you luck for finding something not considered awkward or empty.

BTW, always putting the sign on the whole fraction frustrates separate calculations of its constituents. I think we need the whole zoo and the associated equivalences, even when common core -hearsay- avoids negative fractions. Furthermore, please, allow me to utter my animosity to "opposite" of a number, my preferred term is "additive inverse" or the "negative" (even for negatives). Similarly, I deprecate "subtraction", and "division" (outside of integers), but (unary!) logarithm is fine, ... :) Purgy (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of my calculus students do not know what "inverse" means and do not know what negative numbers are used for. This is not, apparently, taught in US public schools. That is, they are taught the rules for manipulating negative numbers without ever being given an example of why negative numbers are useful. On the other hand, they do know what the word "opposite" means. Please note I did not say the "opposite of a number", but rather that a negative number represents an opposite, using the common example of positive numbers for profits and negative numbers for losses. I think this idea is more important for non-mathematicians than the idea of "additive inverse", though of course math majors need to know both. As for calling the additive inverse of a negative number the negative of the negative number, you lose me there. And as for deprecating "subtraction" and "division" of non-integers, I'm not even going to go there. Meanwhile, I'll think about what can be done about division by zero. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a sad commentary about not knowing what negative numbers are used for. Perhaps we have a little more luck in the northern states where winter temperatures routinely fall below zero. I think you make some valid points. I also (begrudgingly) believe that Purgy has a point about division by zero. I would suggest de-linking the statement about zero denominators and the article on division by zero, since at this point in the lead the association between fractions and division has not been brought up. Later, when division is mentioned, that link could be re-entered. and perhaps an intentionally vague parenthetical–(in this context)–could be added for the purists. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I there a chance that begrudging me having a point, improves your standing with the aristocracy? :D Purgy (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

sfrac vs. math template

In my browser, the "sfrac" template looks nicer than "<math>" template.

<math>\textstyle\frac{1}{2}</math> = $\textstyle {\frac {1}{2}}$

{{sfrac|1|2}} = ⁠1/2⁠.

I also find sfrac easier to type and read when editing the text. The article uses both and I was wondering if anybody else had any particular preference.-Ich (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you might take a look at WP:MOS about partially outdated remarks, or at some HELP pages, or search through abundant discussions on how to denote math expressions in WP just now. The claim that one looks nicer than an other is questionable (??sans?? serif), a consistent look throughout is often unachievable with the simple template, for it being incapable of more elaborate expressions. Some prefer to contrast the math with its embedding text, some don't.

The only pertinent convention I am aware of myself is not to change existing notations without good reason, preferring one being no sufficiently good reason (I agree to exchanging the ⅓, it is deprecated somewhere and sans, anyway). In doubt, take it to the TP. Purgy (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

'Positive or negative, proper, or improper'

@Deacon Vorbis: You reverted my removal of the comma following 'proper' in the above quote (citing MOS:STYLERET); I assume this is because you believed I was removing an Oxford comma. I wasn't: this is not three items in a series and is not a matter of American vs. British convention. 'Positive or negative' and 'proper or improper' are two sets of opposing descriptors for fractions, and it is correct to set them off with a comma, as I have corrected it to (i.e. 'positive or negative, proper or improper'). Another possibility, I suppose, is to forgo commas altogether: 'positive or negative and proper or improper'; personally I think the former sounds better (and is easier to parse).

The way that the quote was and is again punctuated misleadingly (and erroneously) regroups the terms: (positive) or (negative, proper, or improper). (I concede that there exists a third possibility which may be preferable if one is insistent on having a series, 'positive, negative, proper(,) or improper'; however, this no longer expresses the opposition of positive vs. negative and proper vs. improper and may in fact suggest all four as competing options (though of course readers well versed in fractions would not be misled).)

I hope I have explained my point clearly. Cheers. Coreydragon (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Coreydragon: That's fair; I went ahead with kind of a hybrid: "...can be positive or negative, and they can be proper or improper". Hopefully that works without being too awkward. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Thanks for your understanding. While it might be a bit wordy, I think there's no room for confusion in your version, so maybe that's best. Works well enough for me, at least. Cheers. —Coreydragon (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

converting mixed number to improper fraction?

Did someone remove the info about converting a mixed number to improper fraction? I have trouble finding the info about it.Joeleoj123 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

HTH. Purgy (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Putting my question here because it seems related. Under "Simple, common, or vulgar fractions" it reads "Compound fractions, complex fractions, mixed numerals, and decimals (see below) are not simple fractions..." but under 'Complex' and 'Compound' fractions," the last step of the first example simplifies from the improper fraction 3/2 to the mixed number 1 1/2. Should that not stop at 3/2? Clussman (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

"One third (fraction)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect One third (fraction). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved WP:SNOW. Any issue at all and I'll self-rv. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

---

• Fraction (mathematics) → Fraction
• Fraction → Fraction (disambiguation)

– Primary topic is pretty clear here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Proposed primary topics are usually controversial, and require discussion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• 7/8 Support per nomination, and per primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per de'nominator. Anything else is irrational. -- Netoholic @ 19:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC) (edited)
• Support. It should be noted that the two other mathematical items of the dab pages are subtopics and do not really need to be disambiguated. In particular, Algebraic fraction is the "main article" of a section of the same name in Fraction (mathematics). D.Lazard (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This one seems obvious. Calidum 14:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as this is the primary topic.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Simple vs Vulgar

I could have sworn that as a kid (50ish years ago) I was taught that a simple fraction was a 1 over a 4 with a horizontal "mathematically proper" form line, and the vulgarized version was with a slash. The concept was that the slash was an "everyday man" convenience notation, while the Simple was a mathematic definition.

The "Vulgar" attribute was literally meant as "an afront to the proper", or words to that effect.

Just a musing on the subject; I understand that this is not a forum. Was there a change in history at some point, or was this simply an error on my part?

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The original meaning of "vulgar" is common. The common Latin Bible is called the "Vulgate" Bible. Those who started using the word "vulgar" to mean dirty obviously had a low opinion of the common people.

A comment on your "WikipediaisNotPeerReviewed". All people are created equal. Here, we are all peers.

Rick Norwood (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"Top" and "bottom"

The Monty Hall Problem by Jason Rosenhouse, p. 43, says (as an aside):

“ (Among mathematicians, incidentally, it is commonplace to refer to the top and bottom of a fraction. Jawbreakers like "numerator" and "denominator" figure far more prominently in middle-school mathematics classes than they do in actual mathematical practice.) ”

Also, in the current body of the article, the terms "top" and "bottom" are used in several places to refer to the numerator and denominator. Should this be explained properly as an informal terminology? (Not sure if this book is an appropriate source, though.)

Or is this usage obvious to native English speakers?

As a non-native speaker, I was unaware of the existence of this informal terms when I read this article on the English Wikipedia. A mention of this would be useful.--126.254.182.142 (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

As a mathematician, I use "numerator" and "denominator" routinely. They are hardly jawbreakers. And while, in a class of beginning college students, I may use "top" and "bottom" informally, they should not replace "numerator" and "denominator" any more than "five-sided thing" and "six-sided thing" should replace "pentagon" and "hexagon". Rick Norwood (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

For fractions, top and bottom are not equivalent to numerator and denominator. Top and bottom refer to places in a specific representation of fractions (syntactic meaning), while numerator and denominator refer to the meaning (semantics) of the numbers or other objects that are at these places. In particular, top and bottom are meaningless for fractions represented as $a/b,$ while a and b remain the numerator and the denominator. The difference of meaning is illustrated by a sentence such as: In the fraction ${\tfrac {3}{2}},$ the top number (3) is called the numerator and the bottom number (2) is called the denominator. D.Lazard (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

recent edit saying "citation needed"

The paragraph in question is common knowledge to math historians, and has two citations. I don't see the problem. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Definition of "improper fraction" not supported by cited source

This article states: "When the numerator and the denominator are both positive, the fraction is called proper if the numerator is less than the denominator, and improper otherwise". This is cited to Perry and Perry, "Mathematics I". By this definition, the fraction "2/2" would be an improper fraction.

However, following the cite to the preview at https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-05230-1_2, what that source actually says is: "A proper fraction has the numerator less than the denominator and an improper fraction has the numerator greater than the denominator". Fractions like 2/2 don't seem to be classified as either proper or improper. (Unfortunate, because I really could've done with a citeable authority on this point and I thought I had one...)

Could somebody please edit this article to change "improper otherwise" to "improper if the numerator is greater than the denominator", in line with the source? 110.23.152.248 (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

2 is not less than 2 ("less" is different from "less or equal" So, the article is correct D.Lazard (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I am very well aware of the difference between strict and non-strict inequalities, but you seem to have misread what I wrote. The definitions given in Perry and Perry exclude a fraction like 2/2 from being either "proper" or "improper" (since the two concepts are defined independently, both on strict inequalities). But this article gives a definition which implies 2/2 to be an improper fraction, citing Perry and Perry as its source. 110.23.152.248 (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

With the modification that you suggest, every positive integer, for example 10 = 10/1, would be an improper fraction, with the unique exception 1 = 1/1 = 2/2 = ... This would be ridiculous. Note that Perry and Perry do not consider at all the fractions that can be reduced to an integer (at least in the linked page). Moreover, the explanation of the word "improper" that they give implies that 1 is an improper fraction. So, the article must not be changed, and a better reference must be provided. There are certainly plenty of such references. D.Lazard (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

What part of P&P's explanation do you interpret as implying that 1 is an improper fraction? The only statement I see in that excerpt which addresses the question is the statement that "an improper fraction has the numerator greater than the denominator", which clearly implies the contrary.

Personally I would much prefer if the definition of "improper fraction" included 1. As you note, that would make it consistent over the natural numbers; it would also be much cleaner if "improper" was the complement of "proper". But those are aesthetic considerations that don't trump verifiability requirements. Further, I'm aware of two other sources which contradict this article's definition:

• The Hutchinson Pocket Dictionary of Maths defines an improper fraction as "fraction whose numerator is larger than its denominator".
• The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "a fraction in which the number below the line is smaller than the number above it".

I wouldn't consider either of those incontrovertible sources. But until somebody can provide something more authoritative, the article needs to be edited. It should be obvious that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to provide a definition which is contradicted by the cite offered for that definition. If you're not willing to edit the text to match the source it cites, then I request that the cite be removed and replaced with a citeneeded tag. 110.23.152.248 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting that the claim is repeated in the following paragraph, with a second source cited, which *also* contradicts the definition here.

The Wiki text: "It is said to be an improper fraction, or sometimes top-heavy fraction,[16] if the absolute value of the fraction is greater than or equal to 1", listing "3/3" as an example of an improper fraction. But the cited source, Greer's "New Comprehensive Mathematics for O Level"[1] actually says "if the top number of a fraction is **greater than** its bottom number then the fraction is called an improper or top heavy fraction... **note that all top heavy fractions have a value which is greater than 1**." 110.23.152.248 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the sources do not consider ±n/n to be a fraction, as they reduce to 1 or -1, or for 0/0 they are not a valid fraction at all. So they assume the two values are unequal and thus never state whether equal ones are improper. This does not conflict with the text. Spitzak (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if the sources genuinely were ambiguous on the "or equal to" question the article would still be giving a definition that goes beyond what the cited sources support, and that would still be open to challenge and removal in the absence of a cite.

But they are *not* ambiguous. The Greer quote states that "all top heavy fractions [which it's just established as a synonym for 'improper fractions'] have a value which is greater than 1". A fraction equivalent to 1/1 clearly does not have a value "greater than one", therefore by Greer's definition it cannot be an improper fraction. The other sources discussed above all state that an improper fraction has numerator **larger than** denominator - not "larger than or equal to" - which, again, is incompatible with the definition given here.

At this point, given the number of sources that impose a strict "greater than" definition, the article should recognise that definition. If somebody can provide other, reliable sources which offer a "greater than or equal to" definition, then the article can cite those too, acknowledge both definitions, and observe that terminology is inconsistent. Until then, it should match what is given in the sources discussed. 110.23.152.248 (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Spitzak: The text currently says "It is said to be an improper fraction… if the absolute value of the fraction is greater than or equal to 1." As I read the source cited, from Greer, it says that a fraction is improper only if its value is greater than 1 (as 110.23.152.248 has pointed out). Therefore this part of the text contradicts the source: "or equal to"; and these three words should be removed. What do you think? (Whether Greer considers 8/8 to be a fraction at all would seem to be a separate topic.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I posted at NOR/Noticeboard to seek further opinions on this. Another commenter there has located some sources which *do* support the "or equal to" definition. Given that we now have multiple sources for both definitions, I now think the best thing is for the article to acknowledge that conventions vary on this question, and to cite sources for both versions. 110.23.152.248 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the question here is not when a fraction is improper, but whether an expression such as 8/8 is a fraction. Essentially, calling fractions proper and improper is language most common in elementary school, and seldom used after elementary school.

The essential point is that the rational numbers include the integers, which in turn include the natural numbers. And every rational number can be written as a fraction. So the rational number "one" can be written as a fraction, and 8/8 is as good a way to do that as any. The ratio of 8 to 8 is 1.

Any part of a whole can be called "a fraction", as in "You have only completed a fraction of the work you've been assigned." That usage is not the subject of this Wikipedia article. The subject of this Wikipedia article is notation: the use of a horizontal or slanting line to write a number which can always be written in other ways: decimals, percents, etc. So it is a notation. Numbers that are not rational, such as pi/2, are still called "fractions" because of the use of the slanting line. If we talked about "proper" and "improper" fractions, then pi/2 would be an improper fraction, because it is bigger than one. But in all my years of teaching math, I've never heard it called that.

So, maybe we should say something like this:

In elementary school, students are taught to call a fraction larger than one, or sometimes a fraction greater than or equal to one, an "improper fraction", while a fraction between zero and one is called a "proper fraction". When students learn about negative numbers, they may be told that a fraction is proper or improper depending on whether its absolute value is proper or improper, and they may be taught that 0/1 and 1/1 are one or the other, but there is no general rule about this. Different elementary textbooks say different things, and the words "proper" and "improper" are seldom used to describe fractions after elementary school. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)