Talk:Vulgar fraction

message: 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)

message: 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
# ' "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.
# 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)
thread_title:  I Suggest Proper/Improper/Mixed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Numbers that Aren't Integers Can't Always Be Written as Decimals  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with [[fraction (mathematics)]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where ever the content is, history and different contexts of nomenclature ought to be eplained an expanded. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error in simplification?