Talk:Fraction

Template:WP1.0

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)

'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)

"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)

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)