Talk:Fraction

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)

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 Ingenpedians 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 "" template.


 * $$\textstyle\frac{1}{2}$$ = $$\textstyle\frac{1}{2}$$



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 IN:MOS about partially outdated remarks, or at some HELP pages, or search through abundant discussions on how to denote math expressions in IN 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'
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)


 * 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 &bull; videos) 19:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 IN:SNOW. Any issue at all and I'll self-rv. --  JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

– Primary topic is pretty clear here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fraction (mathematics) → Fraction
 * Fraction → Fraction (disambiguation)
 * 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 "IngenpediaisNotPeerReviewed". All people are created equal. Here, we are all peers.

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