#Math Fractions Fraction

[unnonexistence]

95% of math brainteasers that go viral are just bad notation and it drives me up the wall

[ryllen]

[squeakadeeks]

i need you to understand that being a physics department means every few months someone stops by out of the blue and tries to tell us about their "extraordinary new theory" and its just the most insane hogwash imaginable.

this particular guy fully printed and bound this book and just left it at our door. 80% of it is an appendix.

if this sounds insane and illegible, dont worry, it is. in a later part he "takes the limit of zero as zero approaches zero". someone called this standard model fanfiction and its all ive been able to think about for days.

[lilacandladybugs]

wtf is discrete math this is silly. free the math. let the math be scandalous

[ilistentogirlinred]

your pronouns are they/he? you must be a very grateful person huh

[iwillstabyou]

Happy (very belated) number day!

Yes, I know number day was on the 6th of February and it’s not really a thing for most of you guys, but I think you’ll appreciate this.

As a maths nerd, I love dressing up for number day, and as an even bigger inside no. 9 nerd, there was really only one number that I could pick this year…

Yep, I really did it. I dressed up as David from diddle diddle dumpling and carried a shoe around all day. Did people realise that I was dressed up as the number 9? No. Did I give a flying fuck? No.

Very fun, would recommend

[misccreativity]

I enjoy a bad pun way too much 😂

[big-tiddy-goth-ghoulfriend]

a pet peeve of mine is when ratios are presented in "parts" - usually in recipes, especially cocktails - and they involve fractions. The point of ratios is to give a scalable recipe that allows you to make as much or as little as you want; it's not for exact measurements but *relative* ones. If it's written correctly, you don't even need to know what to measure with. Using the classic margarita ratio as an example:

1 part lime juice

1 part simple syrup

2 parts triple sec

3 parts tequila

With that recipe, you know how much of each thing to use relative to the other ingredients. What size are the parts? Doesn't matter. How much margarita do you want? Measure with a shotglass if you're making one drink, a full glass if you're making a pitcher for a party. Hell, measure with a 5-gallon bucket if you're trying to take a bath in it. As long as you use the same container to measure each part, you'll have a good margarita in ten ounces or a thousand. The adaptability is the point.

Which is exactly why this ratio (not for margaritas this time, but for soy sauce marinade) doesn't work:

1 part soy sauce

0.5 parts sugar

3 parts water

How do you do half a part? Half of what? Half is already a relative measurement, normally the benchmark is "a cup". I can't just eyeball half of a 5-gallon bucket and be sure that it's accurate.

Ratios are percentages so you can't put percentage measurements in them already. The smallest amount in your ratio needs to be one part. Scale the others accordingly.

It should be 2 parts soy sauce, 1 part sugar, 6 parts water.

Similarly, if your ratio is something weird like 1 part, 2 parts, 3.5 parts, well then you need to multiply to eliminate the fraction. That's now a 2/4/7 ratio my friend. Having your smallest component be "1 part" isn't as important as eliminating fractional parts.

[gay-mathematician-portmanteau]

@calculus students, i just need you to know that a differential in the form dy/dx or similar is absolutely a fraction and you may treat it as such.

[boothyghost]

so glad i got the math autism, but sometimes i look at the number 18 and go "factors, 6 and 3, 9 and 2. add 1 and 8 makes 9 which is half of 18 that can't be a coincidence," but like it just is. this all happens in the span of a second.

lord forbid i look at 2/30 without going "ah, that means i have 28 left. 14 and 2, 4 and 7, oh hey that's my brother's football number. those are both very cool numbers. fifteen."

WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN??? I DUNNO

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

The android keyboard allows you to type certain fractions, but 7 gets shafted like a redheaded stepchild.

½, ⅓, ¼, ⅕, ⅙, ⅛, but not 1/7. In fact, no denominator 7s at all!

⅔, ⅖, ¾, ⅗, ⅜, ⅘, and that's it!

The only fraction with a 7 in it is ⅞, but that's just rounding out the powers of 2 (⅛, ¼, ⅜, ½, ⅝, ¾, ⅞), the 7 isn't doing any heavy lifting.

Why is there no love for 7? I'm more likely to need to type 1/7 than I am any of the special characters

æߧð±≈≠≡『「〔【』」〕】¡№€£¥₩₽٪‰‽

Okay, the interrobang is actually pretty cool, ‽, but why would I ever need the perthousand symbol, ‰? Or the subsection symbol, §? Or Waluigi brackets, 『「?

[skyward-floored]

May I request the math scene? I want to inflict math on Time :)

Poor Time. He had a reasonable education, and would normally be okay with helping, but then they had to go and switch up math on him... just wait until he realizes he’ll have to help Hyrule with his schoolwork too.

“...Okay, so then you divide here where the sixteen is—”

“No no, Dad, that’s not how you’re supposed to do it,” Wind said as he looked at his father’s scribbling, turning his math book around and pointing at the page. “They want us to do it like this.”

Time stared at the problems in front of him for what felt like the hundredth time, frustration building as a headache behind his eyes. He’d scraped by when he’d been in school, but the math hadn’t been like this, and he didn’t even recognize some of these symbols...

“Why do they want you to do it like that? It makes no sense,” Time said with a disbelieving look, and Wind shrugged.

“I don’t know. Nobody tells me anything. But the teacher said we’re supposed to do it like this.”

“Well I don’t know this way,” Time said, giving the math book a glare with both eyes. “Why would they change math?!”

“Dad, it’s okay,” Wind tried to interject, but Time had lost his patience with the math book.

“Last I checked, math was math!” he growled, jabbing a finger at the book, “MATH IS MATH!”

Wind gave him a concerned look.

“...You know Dad, I’ll just wait for Mom to come back, it’s fine,” Wind said quickly, and Time wrestled down his frustration with a sigh, rubbing the bridge of his nose as he sat back down.

“She won’t understand it any better than I do,” he grumbled.

[english-lessons-bolzano]

Names for the number 0 in English

"Zero" is the usual name for the number 0 in English. In British English "nought" is also used and in American English "naught" is used occasionally for zero, but (as with British English) "naught" is more often used as an archaic word for nothing. "Nil", "love", and "duck" are used by different sports for scores of zero.

There is a need to maintain an explicit distinction between digit zero and letter O,[a] which, because they are both usually represented in English orthography (and indeed most orthographies that use Latin script and Arabic numerals) with a simple circle or oval, have a centuries-long history of being frequently conflated. However, in spoken English, the number 0 is often read as the letter "o" ("oh"). For example, when dictating a telephone number, the series of digits "1070" may be spoken as "one zero seven zero" or as "one oh seven oh", even though the letter "O" on the telephone keypad in fact corresponds to the digit 6.

In certain contexts, zero and nothing are interchangeable, as is "null". Sporting terms are sometimes used as slang terms for zero, as are "nada", "zilch" and "zip".

Zero" and "cipher"

"Zero" and "cipher" are both names for the number 0, but the use of "cipher" for the number is rare and only used in very formal literary English today (with "cipher" more often referring to cryptographic cyphers). The terms are doublets, which means they have entered the language through different routes but have the same etymological root, which is the Arabic "صفر" (which transliterates as "sifr"). Via Italian this became "zefiro" and thence "zero" in modern English, Portuguese, French, Catalan, Romanian and Italian ("cero" in Spanish). But via Spanish it became "cifra" and thence "cifre" in Old French, "cifră" in Romanian and "cipher" in modern English (and "chiffre" in modern French).

"Zero" is more commonly used in mathematics and science, whereas "cipher" is used only in a literary style. Both also have other connotations. One may refer to a person as being a "social cipher", but would name them "Mr. Zero", for example.

In his discussion of "naught" and "nought" in Modern English Usage, H. W. Fowler uses "cipher" to name the number 0.

O" ("oh")

In spoken English, the number 0 is often read as the letter "o", often spelled oh. This is especially the case when the digit occurs within a list of other digits. While one might say that "a million is expressed in base ten as a one followed by six zeroes", the series of digits "1070" can be read as "one zero seven zero", or "one oh seven oh". This is particularly true of telephone numbers (for example 867-5309, which can be said as "eight-six-seven-five-three-oh-nine"). Another example is James Bond's designation, 007, which is always read as "double-o seven", not "double-zero seven", "zero-zero seven", or "o o seven".

The letter "o" ("oh") is also used in spoken English as the name of the number 0 when saying times in the 24-hour clock, particularly in English used by both British and American military forces. Thus 16:05 is "sixteen oh five", and 08:30 is "oh eight thirty".

The use of O as a number can lead to confusion as in the ABO blood group system. Blood can either contain antigen A (type A), antigen B (type B), both (type AB) or none (type O). Since the "O" signifies the lack of antigens, it could be more meaningful to English-speakers for it to represent the number "oh" (zero). However, "blood type O" is properly written with a letter O and not with a number 0.

In sport, the number 0 can have different names depending on the sport in question and the nationality of the speaker.

"Nil" in British sports

Many sports that originated in the UK use the word "nil" for 0. Thus, a 3-0 score in a football match would be read as "three-nil".[1] Nil is derived from the Latin word "nihil", meaning "nothing", and often occurs in formal contexts outside of sport, including technical jargon (e.g. "nil by mouth") and voting results.

It is used infrequently in U.S. English, although it has become common in soccer broadcasts.

"Nothing" and "oh" in American sports

edit

In American sports, the term "nothing" is often employed instead of zero. Thus, a 3-0 score in a baseball game would be read as "three-nothing" or "three to nothing". When talking about a team's record in the standings, the term "oh" is generally used; a 3-0 record would be read as "three and oh".

In cricket, a team's score might read 50/0, meaning the team has scored fifty runs and no batter is out. It is read as "fifty for no wicket" or "fifty for none".

Similarly, a bowler's analysis might read 0-50, meaning he has conceded 50 runs without taking a wicket. It is read as "no wicket for fifty" or "none for fifty".

A batsman who is out without scoring is said to have scored "a duck", but "duck" is used somewhat informally compared to the other terms listed in this section. It is also always accompanied by an article and thus is not a true synonym for "zero": a batter scores "a duck" rather than "duck".

A name related to the "duck egg" in cricket is the "goose egg" in baseball, a name traced back to an 1886 article in The New York Times, where the journalist states that "the New York players presented the Boston men with nine unpalatable goose eggs", i.e., nine scoreless innings.

"Love" and "bagel" in tennis

In tennis, the word "love" is used to replace 0 to refer to points, sets and matches. If the score during a game is 30-0, it is read as "thirty-love". Similarly, 3-0 would be read as "three-love" if referring to the score during a tiebreak, the games won during a set, or the sets won during a match. The term was adopted by many other racquet sports.

There is no definitive origin for the usage. It first occurred in English, is of comparatively recent origin, and is not used in other languages. The most commonly believed hypothesis is that it is derived from English speakers mis-hearing the French l'œuf ("the egg"), which was the name for a score of zero used in French because the symbol for a zero used on the scoreboard was an elliptical zero symbol, which visually resembled an egg.

Although the use of "duck" in cricket can be said to provide tangential evidence, the l'œuf hypothesis has several problems, not the least of which is that in court tennis the score was not placed upon a scoreboard. There is also scant evidence that the French ever used l'œuf as the name for a zero score in the first place. (Jacob Bernoulli, for example, in his Letter to a Friend, used à but to describe the initial zero–zero score in court tennis, which in English is "love-all".) Some alternative hypotheses have similar problems. For example, the assertion that "love" comes from the Scots word "luff", meaning "nothing", falls at the first hurdle, because there is no authoritative evidence that there has ever been any such word in Scots in the first place.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first use of the word "love" in English to mean "zero" was to define how a game was to be played, rather than the score in the game itself. Gambling games could be played for stakes (money) or "for love (of the game)", i.e., for zero stakes. The first such recorded usage quoted in the OED was in 1678. The shift in meaning from "zero stakes" to "zero score" is not an enormous conceptual leap, and the first recorded usage of the word "love" to mean "no score" is by Hoyle in 1742.

In recent years, a set won 6-0 ("six-love") has been described as a bagel, again a reference to the resemblance of the zero to the foodstuff. It was popularised by American announcer Bud Collins.

Null

In certain contexts, zero and nothing are interchangeable, as is "null". However, in mathematics and many scientific disciplines, a distinction is made (see null). The number 0 is represented by zero while null is a representation of an empty set {}. Hence in computer science a zero represents the outcome of a mathematical computation such as 2−2, while null is used for an undefined state (for example, a memory location that has not been explicitly initialised).

In English, "nought" and "naught" mean zero or nothingness, whereas "ought" and "aught" (the former in its noun sense) strictly speaking mean "all" or "anything", and are not names for the number 0. Nevertheless, they are sometimes used as such in American English; for example, "aught" as a placeholder for zero in the pronunciation of calendar year numbers. That practice is then also reapplied in the pronunciation of derived terms, such as when the rifle caliber .30-06 Springfield (introduced in 1906) is accordingly referred to by the name "thirty-aught-six".

The words "nought" and "naught" are spelling variants. They are, according to H. W. Fowler, not a modern accident as might be thought, but have descended that way from Old English. There is a distinction in British English between the two, but it is not one that is universally recognized. This distinction is that "nought" is primarily used in a literal arithmetic sense, where the number 0 is straightforwardly meant, whereas "naught" is used in poetical and rhetorical senses, where "nothing" could equally well be substituted. So the name of the board game is "noughts & crosses", whereas the rhetorical phrases are "bring to naught", "set at naught", and "availeth naught". The Reader's Digest Right Word at the Right Time labels "naught" as "old-fashioned".

Whilst British English makes this distinction, in American English, the spelling "naught" is preferred for both the literal and rhetorical/poetic senses.

"Naught" and "nought" come from the Old English "nāwiht" and "nōwiht", respectively, both of which mean "nothing". They are compounds of no- ("no") and wiht ("thing").

The words "aught" and "ought" (the latter in its noun sense) similarly come from Old English "āwiht" and "ōwiht", which are similarly compounds of a ("ever") and wiht. Their meanings are opposites to "naught" and "nought"—they mean "anything" or "all". (Fowler notes that "aught" is an archaism, and that "all" is now used in phrases such as "for all (that) I know", where once they would have been "for aught (that) I know".)

However, "aught" and "ought" are also sometimes used as names for 0, in contradiction of their strict meanings. The reason for this is a rebracketing, whereby "a nought" and "a naught" have been misheard as "an ought" and "an aught".

sometimes used as names for 0, in contradiction of their strict meanings. The reason for this is a rebracketing, whereby "a nought" and "a naught" have been misheard as "an ought" and "an aught".

Samuel Johnson thought that since "aught" was generally used for "anything" in preference to "ought", so also "naught" should be used for "nothing" in preference to "nought". However, he observed that "custom has irreversibly prevailed in using 'naught' for 'bad' and 'nought' for 'nothing'". Whilst this distinction existed in his time, in modern English, as observed by Fowler and The Reader's Digest above, it does not exist today. However, the sense of "naught" meaning "bad" is still preserved in the word "naughty", which is simply the noun "naught" plus the adjectival suffix "-y". This has never been spelled "noughty".

The words "owt" and "nowt" are used in Northern English. For example, if tha does owt for nowt do it for thysen: if you do something for nothing do it for yourself.

The word aught continues in use for 0 in a series of one or more for sizes larger than 1. For American Wire Gauge, the largest gauges are written 1/0, 2/0, 3/0, and 4/0 and pronounced "one aught", "two aught", etc. Shot pellet diameters 0, 00, and 000 are pronounced "single aught", "double aught", and "triple aught". Decade names with a leading zero (e.g., 1900 to 1909) were pronounced as "aught" or "nought". This leads to the year 1904 ('04) being spoken as "[nineteen] aught four" or "[nineteen] nought four". Another acceptable pronunciation is "[nineteen] oh four".

Decade names

See also: Aughts

While "2000s" has been used to describe the decade consisting of the years 2000–2009 in all English speaking countries, there have been some national differences in the usage of other terms.

On January 1, 2000, the BBC listed the noughties (derived from "nought") as a potential moniker for the new decade. This has become a common name for the decade in the U.K.and Australia, as well as some other English-speaking countries. However, it has not become the universal descriptor because, as Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland pointed out early in the decade, "[Noughties] won't work because in America the word 'nought' is never used for zero, never ever".

The American music and lifestyle magazine Wired favoured "Naughties", which they claim was first proposed by the arts collective Foomedia in 1999.However, the term "Naughty Aughties" was suggested as far back as 1975 by Cecil Adams, in his column The Straight Dope.

interchangeable, as is "null". However, in mathematics and many scientific disciplines, a distinction is made (see null). The number 0 is represented by zero while null is a representation of an empty set {}. Hence in computer science a zero represents the outcome of a mathematical computation such as 2−2, while null is used for an undefined state (for example, a memory location that has not been explicitly initialixed).

Slang

Sporting terms (see above) are sometimes used as slang terms for zero, as are "nada", "zilch" and "zip".

"Zilch" is a slang term for zero, and it can also mean "nothing". The origin of the term is unknown.

Silvio Pasqualini Bolzano inglese ripetizioni English insegnante teacher

[stigmatasweetie]

i love when i finally understand the math problem and suddenly i'm not violently suicidal anymore. it's what i imagine a freed horse galloping across a lush green field during a beautiful warm summer dusk feels like

[coolmika745]

Math Equation in "28 Puddings”

I think Mr. Guzman was kind of confused on how to simplify this fraction and he even second guesses himself.🤔

2 is the greatest common factor (GCF) of both 10 and 12 and if you divide them by it, the result would be 5/6.

[stars-of-radiance]

Um, actually the EXACT time that the train collision would occur is 6:20:46.153846 repeating AM, Brennan