[Gllug] "lowest common denominator"

[Pete Ryland]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:38:29AM +0100, Alistair Mann wrote:
> Thus spaketh Andrew Black (li) on Friday 20 June 2003 6:01 am:
> > > However, they've changed the typesetting in recent versions, and
> > > it's *apalling*. It looks like it's been dumbed down to appeal to
> > > the lowest common denominator,
> >
> > As this thread is about pedantry, my hobby horse is the phrase "lowest
> > common denominator".  Not getting at Tet specifically but everyone that
> > uses it.
> >
> > What is being implyed by this phrase is something no larger than all the
> > (say) people involved.  That is the highest common factor. The lowest
> > common multiple/denominator is a number that is BIGGER than all the
> > numbers you are considering.
> 
> The LCD is the lowest number common to two or more sets. 3, 5, 7 and 3, 6,
> 9 has an LCD of 3 -- the number that is SMALLER than all the numbers we
> are considering.

That is simply wrong.  The LCD of those six numbers is 315.  (The HCF is 1)

> The LCD in a population is a slightly different animal; it infers not the
> dumbest individual in his person, but the lowest standard met by the
> largest number of people. That sense seems clear from what Richard wrote.
> 
> I hate it when people say "Actually ..." or "The reality is ...".

I found Andrew's post quite funny actually, since when you think about it,
what most would intend in the common (non-mathematical) usage of LCD is the
opposite of what you would expect it to mean.

> Everytime my first g/f finished a sentence with "..., right?" I answered
> "Right!". It took about three days for her to get Clue.

That's not a very nice thing to do.  And isn't this the antithesis of what
you were saying?

Pete

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug