Talk:Convert decimal number to rational: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(What should 3.5 and 7 look like?) |
(→Name change?: Irreducible.) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: Or "Convert from decimal into a fraction" --[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 08:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
: Or "Convert from decimal into a fraction" --[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 08:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:: What are the plans for results greater than one? Do we want a "top heavy" fraction or whole number and fractional component? What should 3.5 and 7 look like? Presumably we want "7/2" and "7/1" or do we want "3 1/2" and "7"? |
:: What are the plans for results greater than one? Do we want a "top heavy" fraction or whole number and fractional component? What should 3.5 and 7 look like? Presumably we want "7/2" and "7/1" or do we want "3 1/2" and "7"? |
||
:::Well, since it is not specified, I would think that it is left to the individual, but giving a fraction that is still reducible, such as 5/10 would not feel right. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 11:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Decimal? == |
== Decimal? == |
Revision as of 11:42, 12 June 2011
Name change?
To possibly: "Convert decimal number to rational". To make it more descriptive. --Paddy3118 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or "Convert from decimal into a fraction" --Markhobley 08:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- What are the plans for results greater than one? Do we want a "top heavy" fraction or whole number and fractional component? What should 3.5 and 7 look like? Presumably we want "7/2" and "7/1" or do we want "3 1/2" and "7"?
- Well, since it is not specified, I would think that it is left to the individual, but giving a fraction that is still reducible, such as 5/10 would not feel right. --Paddy3118 11:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- What are the plans for results greater than one? Do we want a "top heavy" fraction or whole number and fractional component? What should 3.5 and 7 look like? Presumably we want "7/2" and "7/1" or do we want "3 1/2" and "7"?
Decimal?
Are we talking about only rationals? What about 3.14159265...? --Ledrug 06:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)