Anonymous user
Talk:Fraction reduction: Difference between revisions
→Anomalous cancellation: explained my intentions.
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→Anomalous cancellation: Still needs a better name) |
(→Anomalous cancellation: explained my intentions.) |
||
Line 8:
:: 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.) --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk: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, <u>especially</u> 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 (3<sup>rd</sup> 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 <u>know</u> 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 2<sup>nd</sup> better (maybe because it invokes more about the method of in-appropriate fraction reduction, even though the result is "correct"), but I suppose the 1<sup>st</sup> would probably be more definitive. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 11:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
| |||