Talk:Vulgar fraction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

what about the verniculum? archaic i know but that the symbol that looks like a radicand for roots is called a verniculum with long division...doesn't it?

I think you mean vinculum (apparently from the Latin for chain). The external link:
http://members.aol.com/jeff570/operation.html
has a list of various historical usages of mathematical symbols; it lists history (and images from historic documents) of both the obelus ("÷") (crossword addicts take notice) and the vinculum, among other approaches to notating division. Chas zzz brown 01:36 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)

The plan for this article is to move most of the current text into an ==arithmetic== section and to bring over from the fraction (mathematics) disambiguation page all the sub-categories of vulgar fraction. Paul Beardsell 23:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Do vulgar fractions yell profanities?[edit]

Okay, sounds like a silly question, but exactly why is it called a "vulgar" fraction? (Maybe it's just my crazy imagination, but it makes me think of a numerator and denominator yelling vulgarities at each other. Or perhaps insulting someone that he's only ½ the man he used to be.) –radiojon 19:51, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

'vulgar' is Latin for 'common'; the term just means common fraction, which is a synonym. -R. S. Shaw 19:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is the other kind of fraction? Decimal fraction? Are there other kinds of fractions? (Surreal numbers perhaps?) --Doradus 03:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC).
See Fraction (mathematics)#Other_fractions -R. S. Shaw 04:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
During the medival period, unit fraction series became less popular. The common vulgar fraction version became popular, a shorthand method that shortened the work of arthmetic problem solving, as the Liber Abaci, 1202 AD, and other texts cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.197.178.219 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the meaning of "vulgar" should be added to the entry. I, too, wondered why they are called that.

I agree. I saw the "Vulgar fraction" link in the article on transport font, and my first reaction was "What the #%$@& is that supposed to mean?"Algr 20:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to enter an article on ordinal fractions.[edit]

Bo Jacoby, September 5, 200500

I Suggest Proper/Improper/Mixed[edit]

I have done some research on this subject and have found that, internationally, it is best to break fractions into:

  • Proper Fractions
  • Improper Fractions
  • Mixed Fractions

"Vulgar" is not as commonly used as "Improper"

See my page Proper Fractions, designed for an international audience.

Note: there are differing views on whether a fraction such as 2/2 is Proper or Improper, I have gone with "Improper" in that case.

So I propose reorganising along those lines, and leaving a redirect for "vulgar"

I can have a go at this in a few weeks if I have some consensus. MathsIsFun 20 Sep 05

  1. ' "Vulgar" is not as commonly used as "Improper" ' – this seems to imply that they are synonyms, but they are not. Vulgar fractions can be either proper or improper.
  2. It's not clear to me what sort of reorganization you are proposing. There are already articles for Fraction (mathematics), improper fraction, mixed fraction, and for other types of fractions. -R. S. Shaw 04:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Fractions[edit]

I believe the term 'common fraction' is more suitable for today's audience.

yet, to understand ancient math, of Greeks and Egyptians the term vulgar fraction is more appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.199.41.208 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


The author of 'Vulgar Fraction' makes the point that a 'vulgar', or 'common', fraction is one in which the numerator and denominator are integers, as opposed to rationals, irrationals, etc. This is a distinction that needs to be mentioned, but perhaps should not be the title of the entry.

It could also be pointed out that 'fractions' is the ordinary term for what scientists and mathematicians call 'rational numbers': pairs of integers that provide the ability to break down a whole into fractional parts. A link to number systems could be made.

I would suggest 'Fractions' as the overall title since it is what most people would know, with several categories defined in the summary: common, proper, improper, etc. Links to more 'mathematical' fractions such as rational functions, could also be made. Examples could be shown for each type.

In the order of presentation, multiplying fractions should, I believe, come before addition, since multiplication of fractions is easier than addition.

Examples using cakes, pizzas, etc. are good. Use of money is also attractive, but suffers from the fact that there is no common monetary unit. The same could be said for foods, of course. So we need universal objects that anyone on earth would recognize. Anybody know any? A cake might be close. I like cheese.

D. Crandall, Salem, Mass, USA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.110.209 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt, and the RMP problems 24-38 are also excellent problems to discuss. Each solved simple algebra problems using vulgar fractions as an intermediate step. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.199.41.208 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbers that Aren't Integers Can't Always Be Written as Decimals[edit]

i is a number, yet there is no way to write it as a decimal. I'm changing it to read:

Fractions that cannot be expressed as integers (i.e. are not of the form a⁄a) can be written as decimals. Don 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You must have meant a⁄1, not a⁄a since the latter is only the integer 1, not any other integer. Anyway, an integer can be expressed using decimals; many people do this frequently. When I write a check for twelve dollars, I usually write the amount as 12.00, which is a decimal expression, albeit a trivial one. Hence, I've simplified the section on decimals by removing the complication about integers. -R. S. Shaw 19:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with fraction (mathematics)[edit]

Merge. On Dec 9, 2005, someone posted a suggestion to merge vulgar fraction with fraction (mathematics). I second the motion. (I was redirected here from numerator, and see no use for having vulgar fractions as a separate article.) --Jon Olav Vik 11:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge. There's nothing truly notable about "vulgar" fractions versus fractions in general.

Merge. I agree. There's nothing that notable about vulgar vs. fractions in general. Wikipedian27 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge. "Vulgar" fractions are fractions, so they should be included in that article.

Where ever the content is, history and different contexts of nomenclature ought to be eplained an expanded.[edit]

I honestly think mathematical terms like this, which obviously have an etymology and contexts of usage that are interesting for a general reader, like here is obviously the case, they should be covered in the wikipedia, and not only wiktionary. That is of course just my opinion. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 05:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Error in simplification?[edit]

I noticed you mentioned the simplification of 4/64 to 1/4 by a scribe. Shouldn't the simplification be to 1/16? Did the scribe make an error?

65.96.177.121 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Jason

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vulgar_fraction&oldid=342940770"