I'm working on modernizing Rosetta Code's infrastructure. Starting with communications. Please accept this time-limited open invite to RC's Slack.. --Michael Mol (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Fraction reduction

From Rosetta Code

Anomalous cancellation[edit]

Seems to me that this task would be better titled: Anomalous cancellation, or at least "Fraction reduction by anomalous cancellation" so it is easier to google. --Thundergnat (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I never heard of that term,   nothing about that term suggests to me fraction reductions.   But if I had heard of it,   I would've added it to the task's preamble.   I'm sure that everyone knows what   reduction of fractions   means.   However,   I'll add the term to the Rosetta Code task preamble as a comment   ("it's also known as")   to facilitate keyword searching.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Now, the term   accidental cancellation of fractions   sounds like a term that most people might know what it means or intuits.   I'll also add this term to the task preamble.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Not having heard of it doesn't mean it's not the more correct name. Intuition has little to do with it. If you had never heard of the term Humble numbers, how would you intuit what they were? Lets do an experiment. Google "Fraction reduction", "Anomalous cancellation", and "Accidental cancellation" and see which has the overwhelming majority of relevant links. It would just be more accurate to retitle the page "Fraction reduction by anomalous cancellation" or "Fraction reduction by accidental cancellation" or "Accidental cancellation of fractions" to make it clear that it is not traditional fraction reduction. (And I know that the task preamble makes that clear, but web searches will not be so discerning.) --Thundergnat (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You mistook my intent completely.   I was only pointing out that   anomalous cancellation   is a somewhat obscure term,   whereas   fraction reduction   is not.   My point had nothing to do with correctness, but   fraction reduction   is never-the-less correct.   We probably shouldn't be debating which is more correct, but what is more recognizable and easier to find, especially if one doesn't know what the actual name of that method of fraction reduction is.   So the experiment is essentially a non-starter,   as at that time, I didn't know of the term   anomalous cancellation.   As far as   humble numbers,   that is what they are called, but if you have a more recognizable name, I want to hear it.   If you search for   "humble numbers",   you'll find it   (3rd entry on my search was a pretty good definition, but I don't use Google™).   First entry found was the Rosetta Code task.   I've never used Google's™ answers (popularity) as a definitive way to gauge correctness.   As far as comparing searches for names of methods,   it doesn't help if one doesn't know of the term   (and an obscure one at that)   to try to find it.   In any case, with the addition of the new term(s) and link in the task's preamble, it will aid people in finding this Rosetta Code task.   However, I have no qualms about you renaming the task (and providing a redirect, I suppose) to:   "Fraction reduction by anomalous cancellation" or "Fraction reduction by accidental cancellation".   Of the two, I like the 2nd better (maybe because it invokes more about the method of in-appropriate fraction reduction, even though the result is "correct"),   but I suppose the 1st would probably be more definitive.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I was originally toying around with the name:   fallacious fraction reductions,   but I discarded it.   Sounded worse than it was.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)