Now we know what time the nurses do their rounds.
Ditto. You wonder what kind of facility he is in or was his mother coming to turn off the lights?
Like I said, I've known what the word denominator means since primary school. It means exactly what the definitions you have been quoted say it means.
No it isn't. Any definition, saying that the denominator is a number, as you and other posters and apparently "dictionary definitions" stated is wrong. All fractions, even numeric ones, by their very definition are essentially algebraic. Unfortunately, "my nurses" don't let me get to my books. I could have told you exactly when was, that term "adamazied" (and BTW, I couldn't care less if they would use the verb "to evesize" of something like that) the first time that word was used and why, so saying such things as: "... the number below the fractional line ..." is total nonsense and the reason why so many people, as they say, "don't understand fractions". Yes, I am right and you are wrong even if "my mother, nurses have to come to turn the lights off in the facility where I live" ...
The rest of your post seems to be a rant about the silly mistakes ignorant people make when they don't properly understand fractions.
Actually, when people say they don't understand fractions. They obviously don't know what they are talking about. All you need to "understand" fractions is to be acquainted with a pre verbal concept: "like terms" and you wouldn't even be able to speak, think, survive if you don't. All kinds of experiments have been done with pre verbal babies and animals and they all "understand" -like terms-.
My "favorite" of such kinds of flat out mistaken beliefs you find everywhere is saying that "functions are equations". I was ranting on some other thread about some guy saying such non sense even on ted talk. He was even using such nonsense to explain the idea behind his whole video.
Now, the barely interesting part is why do people believe such and many other things. Well, they "see" a number in the denominator of numeric fractions and they "see" an equal sign as part of the definition of functions, in which, case, by the way, the equal sign should be read as "given by" ... They "see" it, you see?
The history of Math is plagued with "interesting", downright stupid stories of visual folks who were "seeing" things. Take, for example, the wrong headed and failed demonstration attempts at proving the V postulate in the compilation by Euclid: "The Elements" for two millenia. The most interesting aspect of visual folks is that they are somehow able to "see" that there is something that is not quite right with the picture, they just can't make sense of exactly what and why.
I am writing up all those clarifying notes because I believe in karma and I am silly enough to entertain the belief, as the Spanish saying goes, that: "a lie can run for hundred years, but the truth will reach it in one day". Gringos have showed to me how wrong that saying is, I just choose to be "romantic."
What any of that has to do with the meaning of the arithmetical term denominator I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure none of the posters contributing to this thread would make the elementary error you describe.
Unless you are a mind reader, I don't know how you could know that. This whole fractions this and fractions that started because apparently other posters had a hard time just establishing two ratios. They kept demanding an "explanation", were telling me the "proportion" "in the denominators" are large ... (or something like that) .... They were having problems with something which is common chore 3rd grade Math, so I don't know how could you be so sure about them not making such mistakes.
"When the denominator of a set of fractions is the same you add them by just adding up the numerators and leaving the denominator unchanged" is, again, something I learned in primary school.
to wit: you add -the fractions- by ... which is the only sensical way in which you can add any two terms, in exactly the same way you would only add apples to apples, books to books, days to days, starts to stars ..., but not quarters to 20 dollar bills, Mexican pesos or mangos.
Anyway, the folks who could not "understand" what I meant when I demonstrably stated that "freedom lovers" have 8xed the genocide of Nazis during WWII seem to have "understood" what I meant just fine, since they started to rationalize this fact in their own ways, as they said: that only means that "'we' are better at killing and not getting killed", "that the technologies used in wars nowadays are different", ... and that means also that when talk one line, paragraph or page about Nazism, you will have more than one good reason to talk 8 lines, paragraphs or pages about "freedom loving".
I also find unbelievably stupid when people talk ***** about the East German stasi (as a way to talk about how bad they were (implicitly how "good" the NSA, those 5 eyes countries, ... are))
https://www.ted.com/talks/hubertus_knabe_the_dark_secrets_of_a_surveillance_state
when thy didn't even have computers, had to launch "intelligent operations" to get used cassette recorders from the West, could only monitor like 4 telephone numbers in 10,000 people, ... they didn't have monitoring cameras everywhere; couldn't map, index and crosscorrelate society at large real time like a rat maze ... The idea that one day a government could collect -any tangile information from all their subjects- real time in a self indexing and actionable way to them would be way beyond their wildest sweat dreams. Many of those folks are still alive we should ask them what they think about that.
I wonder if they "see" that they are actually helping some of the other important (of many other) points I am making while comparing Nazis to USG: When Nazis were doing their freedom loving they fought against forces that could and did defend themselves on an equal basis. Of course, "freedom lovers" could try their smartness at killing (as Obama was even joking, boasting about) with Russia and China, but then they somehow instantly become smart in other ways, they start saying (and apparently believing themselves!) that: "they 'must' be responsible" ...
