. signed, Rosguill talk 00:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Greatest common denominator }} → :Greatest common divisor (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greatest_common_denominator&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2020-03-01&end=2020-03-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Greatest_common_denominator stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Greatest common denominator|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Greatest common denominator closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Greatest common denominator|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Greatest common denominator closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Greatest common denominator|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Greatest common denominator closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Non existent concept D.Lazard (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. A quick search on google books seems to indicate that you are wrong. "Greatest common denominator" and "Greatest common divisor" are used interchangeably. "The greatest common factor (GCF), also known as the greatest common denominator or greatest common divisor, is the largest number..."[https://books.google.com/books?id=rqGlDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false] Here are a couple more sources: [https://books.google.com/books?id=x9fbAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA108&dq=%22greatest+common+denominator%22+Greatest+common+divisor&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZnrKC_8ToAhUwc98KHdWeDIUQ6AEwAnoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22greatest%20common%20denominator%22%20Greatest%20common%20divisor&f=false][https://books.google.com/books?id=D_XKBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1257&dq=%22greatest+common+denominator%22+Greatest+common+divisor&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZnrKC_8ToAhUwc98KHdWeDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22greatest%20common%20denominator%22%20Greatest%20common%20divisor&f=false] Rreagan007 (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - It exists and is the same thing. I was actually taught this concept growing up. Hog Farm (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Some authors use effectively this term (3120 hits in Scholar Google, against 57,500 for "greatest common divisor", and 179,000 for "gcd). So, although the term is nonsensical, it must be referred to in WP. Thus I have added a footnote with an anchor to Greatest common divisor, and edited the redirect for redirecting to this note.
:Therefore, as the nominator, I suggest to speedy close this RfD as keep. D.Lazard (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
::It's not eligable for a speedy keep as Anita5192 has recommended deleting this. There are also too few opinions expressed for it to be snowing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
::*{{ping|D.Lazard}} I have a problem with your solution of redirecting to that footnote. Unless you can provide a reliable source that says using the term "greatest common denominator" is "confusing and should be avoided", it constitutes WP:Original Research on your part and thus goes against Wikipedia policy. The proper thing to do here according to Wikipedia policy is simply to have this redirect direct to the article itself and include "greatest common denominator" in the lead in bold as an alternative term. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
::::I would not be opposed to remove "should be avoided" and to replace "confusing" by "self-contradictory", but I strongly oppose to redirecting to the article itself, per WP:DUE: a minor and erroneous terminology must not have the same weight as the standard terminology. In any case, this is not the right place for this discussion. This shoud be resolved by a discussion on the talk page of the article after the closure of the RfD. D.Lazard (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
::::: I agree that the footnote is OR. "Greatest common denominator" absolutely should not be included in the lead under any circumstances: we also have redirects from spelling errors, but those don't get included in the lead in bold for obvious reasons, and this is the same situation. --JBL (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::: This isn't a spelling error. It is an alternate term that is used in published sources and is more common than at least one of the other alternate terms that are currently bolded in the lead.[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=greatest+common+denominator%2Chighest+common+divisor&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cgreatest%20common%20denominator%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Chighest%20common%20divisor%3B%2Cc0] Rreagan007 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::: Yes obviously, it is using the wrong word rather than spelling a word incorrectly. The appearance of four bolded alternate names in the lead is really dumb since they just differ by trivial substitutions, I will try to fix it. N-grams don't answer the important question here. --JBL (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: I strongly suggest a separate names section as recommended by Wikipedia policy that I cite below. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Hog Farms and Rreagan007. This is a widely used term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Meh and absolutely do not include the term in bold in the lead of GCD. The people who think this is widely used are just confused: it's just an error (mixing up "greatest common divisor" and "lowest common denominator") that gets repeated sometimes because it's easy to make, not a valid alternate term. The people who say they learned this either are making the error themselves, or (less likely) had a teacher who made the error; but it is absolutely not an accepted term in any reliable sources (indeed, its inclusion would be a sign of unreliability). --JBL (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- : I have added Template:R from incorrect name to the redirect; hopefully this will resolve the issue. --JBL (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Do you have any sources that say this is an incorrect name? If not, then it is merely your opinion. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::: Do you have any sources that say it is a correct name? Because in fact you are wrong. (And please note that I'm at least the third PhD mathematician to communicate this!) --JBL (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Here you go: [https://books.google.com/books?id=rqGlDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false][https://books.google.com/books?id=x9fbAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA108&dq=%22greatest+common+denominator%22+Greatest+common+divisor&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZnrKC_8ToAhUwc98KHdWeDIUQ6AEwAnoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22greatest%20common%20denominator%22%20Greatest%20common%20divisor&f=false][https://books.google.com/books?id=D_XKBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1257&dq=%22greatest+common+denominator%22+Greatest+common+divisor&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZnrKC_8ToAhUwc98KHdWeDIUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22greatest%20common%20denominator%22%20Greatest%20common%20divisor&f=false]. Now where are your sources? Wikipedia policy is very clear that information in articles is based on what can be verified by reliable, published sources. It's nice you have a PhD, but your argument from authority is a logical fallacy and completely irrelevant to this discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::: The first source does not appear to contain the term, the second is obviously not a reliable source for terminology in mathematics (based on my googling, it seems that this error is most common among people writing about basic algorithms), and the third appears to include the term either as a typo or as a courtesy to people like you who get confused (it's a bit hard to tell). I am skeptical that any good source exists to say that this isn't a real thing because ... it's not a real thing; likewise no source exists to say that GCD does not mean "greatest cohomology derivative". There is absolutely no possibility that the beginning of the GCD article will ever endorse the nonsensical and erroneous term "greatest common denominator" as an acceptable alternative, because it's not. You might as well be putting the pronunciation "yoo-ler" into the lead of Leonhard Euler: an understandable mistake, and one made by plenty of people, but nevertheless a mistake. --JBL (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::: Also, obviously, argument from authority can be fallacious in some applications but it need not be and is not in this case: when everyone with relevant expertise is saying the same thing, that is in fact a good sign that that thing is correct. --JBL (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
::I agree, and it is for this reason that I have retargeted the redirect to a footnote. D.Lazard (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::That footnote is filled with original research and your personal opinion unless you can back up the information there with a source. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::: I agree that the footnote doesn't belong unless it can be sourced. --JBL (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
::::: Well at least we agree on something. Since there are so many alternative names for this topic, perhaps a separate alternate terms section would be more appropriate than having so many alternate titles in the lead anyway. Per WP:Article Titles: "If there are three or more alternative names...a separate name section is recommended." And within that section, "greatest common denominator" could be mentioned along with a brief discussion on the differences/distinctions between "divisor", denominator", and "factor". Rreagan007 (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::Regardless of the sources and authorities, the term "greatest common denominator" isn't even well-defined and hence makes no mathematical sense.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I disagree. It's pretty clear that the term "denominator" is just being used as a substitute for the word "divisor". And it isn't that hard to figure out why. A fraction can be thought of as a division problem, with the denominator acting as the divisor. From Wikipedia's article on fractions: "In terms of division, the numerator corresponds to the dividend, and the denominator corresponds to the divisor." Rreagan007 (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: Of course the word "denominator" is being used as a substitute for the word "divisor". And of course the confusion is related to what you say (combined with the fact that, when adding fractions, one finds the least common denominator). But that doesn't make the phrase a valid alternate name, it makes it a very understandable (and so apparently somewhat common) mistake. --JBL (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: Whether or not it's a "mistake" is a matter of opinion. Regardless, just because you don't think the term makes sense doesn't mean that it's not a term that is used in published sources and taught in math classes, and thus should be included in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::: {{tq|Whether or not it's a "mistake" is a matter of opinion.}} No, it isnot: mathematics is the rare place where one can say unambiguously whether a thing is correct or not, and this is not correct. It is not taught in math classes except possibly by mistake, and it is not used in published sources that are reliable for questions of mathematical nomenclature. --JBL (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::: It was the term taught to me throughout my grade school math classes, not by mistake, but because that is the term my grade school math textbooks used. And as I explain above, denominator and divisor can be viewed as interchangeable terms. This is not a math problem where there is a right answer and a wrong answer. These are language terms with arbitrary definitions, not prime numbers or the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference. As far as I am aware, there is no central mathematics language authority that determines what a mathematical concept will be called in English. All of the various terms for this same topic have arisen organically over time. This is an English language issue, not a mathematical issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::: No, this is not an English language issue, it is a mathematics language issue. There are many words that have a completely different meaning in mathematics and in English (for example field, ring, free module). A problem arise often when the mathematical meaning and the English meaning are close although different, or when there are two different mathematical meanings. This is the case here; see divisor (disambiguation): a divisor may be the second operator of a division; in this case, it can also be called a denominator if the division is represented by a fraction. On the other hand, a divisor may mean "an integer that divides evenly another integer". For this meaning, denominator is never used; using it in this sense would make mathematical texts as confusing as a text that would use "cat" instead of "dog". There is no source asserting that a dog must not be called a cat, and such a source is not needed in Wikipedia. In "greatest common divisor", the word divisor refers to the second meaning, and not at all to the first meaning. So, using denominator in this case, is definitevely an error. If this has been taught to you, this means that your teacher was a crank, or at least that he did not master the subject of his course. D.Lazard (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::: I meant English language in the sense that these are the English language terms we're dealing with here, not mathematical problems that have a right and wrong answer. And you again say that "denominator" is never used in this context is clearly wrong, as there are multiple sources that use it in this sense. All you have do is a simple Google search for "greatest common denominator" and you will find multiple mathematics-oriented websites that use this term. Wikipedia is meant to reflect the reality of how secondary sources use terms, not reflect your own personal opinions about which terms are the "correct" ones to be used and which ones don't make sense to you. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: The comparison with prime numbers is instructive. The definition of the adjective "prime" has changed over time: someone who went to elementary school 20 centuries ago or so would have learned that 1 is prime. The accepted modern definition of "prime" excludes 1; consequently our article about prime numbers excludes 1 as prime. Similarly, the word "denominator" has a fixed meaning; that meaning is socially contingent (like the definition of "prime"), but at least at this moment it is completely standard among mathematicians. The fact that you think you learned it can be used to mean something else carries no more weight than if you thought you had learned that 1 is prime (and it would not surprise me if the occasional elementary school teacher made this error). The fact that some non-specialist sources likewise make the same error is good evidence of the uselessness of such sources for matters of mathematical nomenclature; it does not mean that our article should contain false statements. (Of course, the primality of 1 is different in that there is a lot of literature discussing the change in definition, so one can write good encyclopedic content about the question.) --JBL (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep as a commonly used alternate name, even if it isn't technically correct. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
