I'm inclined to agree with Justice Ginsburg on this one.

"No fraction" would be accurate if the denominator were zero, right?

David, you and your "anonymous" tipster are reading RBG's opinion incorrectly. Clearly she's drawing a distinction between a "fraction" and a "whole"--a proper distinction. It may be mathematically imprecise, but since the term fraction isn't being used in its precise mathematical sense, it doesn't matter.

Oh, and posting your flirty IMs on your blog is so tacky.

I agree with 12:53. The point of n.10 is that the number of women who are affected (the numerator) and the group of women as a whole (the denominator) are the same. In other words, it's not "a large fraction" it's 100-freaking-percent. I think it's you and your math whiz buddy that need to stick to Home Ec.

I'm inclined to agree with CLS 3L. My immediate thought was 1/1 is a "whole", not a "fraction", regardless of what the precise mathematical definition is.

of course 1/1 is a fraction. 1/1 equals a discrete number but it is a fraction nonetheless

Agree with CLS 3L. x/x is a whole, there is no fraction (as opposed to y/x).

bad post

No need to get your panties in such a bunch, 1:02, but 12:53 and 12:56 and RBG are clearly right. There's no suggestion that she meant "the fraction does not exist because the denominator is zero"--the point of her argument is that the absence of a health exception doesn't just affect some teeny _fraction_ of women (as the majority says), but 100% of the women for whom it is relevant.

1 is a whole number, not a fraction, she is right. Your 'tipster' is not just rude, but wrong.

Ok, so maybe everyone is right:

"A fraction is a part of a whole (intuitive) and a division relationship between two numbers."

John Pace, A Rational Approach to Fractions, The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Jun. 1978), p 155 [on Jstor, turned up in a google search]

So as a mere relationship between those two numbers, yes, 1/1 is a "fraction." Still, it's a pretty stupid thing to post.

I just lost 2 minutes of my life, and a client just lost 2 minutes worth of my fees that neither they nor I can ever get back ... simply because i was curious enough to read this post ....

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source frac·tion (frāk'shən) Pronunciation Key
n.
Mathematics An expression that indicates the quotient of two quantities, such as 1/3 .
A disconnected piece; a fragment.
A small part; a bit: moved a fraction of a step.
A chemical component separated by fractionation.

Once you start busting out "numerator" and "denominator," you're no longer using the word "fraction" in a non-mathematical sense. I think it is fine to make fun of RBG for this, if only because she is clearly using these specific words to bolster her argument by sounding "technical," but she is technically not using them correctly. At the very least, it is a sloppy footnote.

Is this the best post ever? No.

Also, I hate it when people identify themselves by what law school they go to. Don't you think that is just a little pretentious?

clearly, the relevant point of this post is to reveal that Lat has tacky IM convos

To "math major" earlier -

You must have gone to a tier 2 math program ... a whole number may be expressed as a fraction.

For instance, say you were comparing the number of big firm job offers at HLS to those from Regent, and assume they both have 200 grads. You could express the ratios as 2000/200 at harvard vs. 3/200 at Regent. And therefore to determine how much better HLS is that regent we can cross multiply and see that 2000/3 is the appropriate quotient. or approximately 667 times better. Get it?

"Once you start busting out "numerator" and "denominator," you're no longer using the word "fraction" in a non-mathematical sense."

Yes, "numerator" and "denominator" are such obscure, high-concept, exclusively mathmatical terms.

...and even if she was speaking strictly mathematically, she still doesn't forsake the reasonable, contextually-proper definition of "fraction" as "not a whole." Only the most uncharitable and/or ignorant reading assumes she blundered here.

I love Jeebus.

"No, sweetie, if the numerator and the denominator are the same, that just equals 1. Now go back to Home Ec and stop trying to learn math."

Could the IM person have actually been directing this at Lat?

This is one of the most idiotic waste of time posts I have ever seen on a blog.

First, RBG is RIGHT, Lat. It is you, dear fool, who are wrong.

Second, what kind of loser IMs someone to tip them off to THIS CRAP? I hereby nominate "tipster" as world's single biggest loser.

Fools, fools everywhere. What's next? A post on the width of the justices' mailboxes (heading "open wide.... or too wide?")?

You really don't have anything interesting to write about, do you? I know, how about your 450th post on salaries. You could examine the vast differential in monthly life insurance co-pays between elite firms. I mean, some firms make people pay 14 dollars per paycheck and some only 12!!!!!

Gallion OUT!

Wow. You are a moron. Under your impeccable logic, every number is a "fraction". For example 16 is the same as 16/1. So 16 is a fraction! EGADS! What do we do now!? The word "fraction" literally means part of a whole. That's what the Justice meant.

a real math person would have mentioned 'unity'

And stay "OUT", Gallion. You are pathetic. As if anyone cares about what you think. Don't you have anything better to do than be a troll?

If you think you are so smart and funny, start your own site. Let's see if it ever reaches the popularity of ATL.

I hereby nominate YOU as world's single biggest loser.

Eh...leave the Math-heads alone. I mean how often do lawyers with a math background get to snark at anyone about Math? Particularly, a brilliant supreme court justice? Hell, I haven't had anyone mention math in my job...ever really. So let us lawyer/math types be snarky. (Now if we could just add a little economics snarking...I'd be right at home and someone here would probably egg my house...)

Gallion is right.

Err...and for 2:22,

Everything can be *expressed* as a fraction. As mentioned previously, fraction is a relational concept.

And if any posters remember all the way back to say, Calc 2, you might recall that multiplying by a fraction that would otherwise equal 1 is often the key to solving the problem.

2:27 = "tipster"?

i will say to the death that whatever troll forwarded this "tip" to Lat is the biggest loser on the planet. Period.

Gallion OUT!

Many words have more than one meaning. "Fraction" is one of them. A "fraction" could be:

1. A number expressed as a numerator and a denominator (e.g. 1/2, 3/4, 5/5).

2. A part of a whole (e.g. "only a fraction of David Lat's posts are worth reading").

By definition (1), every number may be "expressed" as a fraction.

By definition (2), not every number is a fraction. If all of Lat's posts were worth reading--e.g., 6 of 6 (6/6) or 150 out of 150 (150/150)--then the statement "only a fraction of David Lat's posts are worth reading" would be false even though the number of his posts worth reading could be expressed mathematically as a fraction.

It seems pretty clear that Justice Ginsberg was using the second definition. That is the common English definition rather than the mathematician's definition. I am sure she is also aware that the number 1 can be expressed mathematically as a fraction.

Hay gusy. Is 22/7 a "large fraction"? Just wondering.

Another example of why lawyers don't get invited to cool parties.

3:22: Amen to that!

Hey Lat - I have a great story that is definitely worthy of a page on your cool blog. Here it is -- a few years ago, one of the justices had a minor skin rash. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA just call me "tipster" and under NO circumstances attribute this to me. Your readers are gonna love it!!!

Doofus

Gallion, that IS a great story. Was it Souter? And was the rash accompanied by painful urination?

I love this website, but this is embarassing and it makes Lat and everyone who reads ATL look like idiots. RBG was right. Take this story down.

Looks like the mens aren't very good at math. As always. Go back to Shop class.

I'm going to go with Ruth on this one. This isn't Ruth being bad at math. It's everyone else being good at semantics.

Her point is that the law and its lack of a health exception affects all those women for whom other procedures would be risky.

Women who are
affected by lack of
health exception
---------------------- = 1/1=1
Women who need
to use D&Eas other
procedures are risky

So there is no "fraction" of women that are affected by the law as 100% of the women in the relevant category are affected.

2:54 has the right idea, except that Justice Ginsburg *also* used the words "numerator" and "denominator." The problem, using 2:54's numbering scheme, is that she plainly meant definition (2) (casual use of "fraction" to mean less than the whole) while using the mathematical language applicable to definition (1). Correct or not, it's inelegant.

I'm just surprised that everyone assumes that "tipster" exists. This is an example of a conversation had with oneself gone horribly wrong.

much ado about nothing.

i had to read the post several times to understand exactly what alleged math error RBG committed. i agree with 2:54.

EPIC FAIL.

I laughed my ass off at this post and the subsequent comments. If I hadn't done that, I would have cried for losing several valuable minutes of my life by reading the utterly ridiculous conversation with the "tipster".

Anyway, Lat, since you are now a math whiz, how about showing me why the following proof is wrong?

1. a = b
2. a^2 = a*b
3. a^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2
4. (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
5. (a+b) = b
6. a+a = a
7. 2a = a
8. 2 = 1
QED

huh?

creepers Mr. Wizard, you divided by zero in step 5!

PS: why are you posting "math brain teasers" most of us learned in 5th grade?

I'm glad to see that someone here knows math, even if it's the lameoid divide-by-zero stuff that I pulled off the intrawebs.

Mr. Wizard likes young male companions, especially if they wax their eyebrows and sue Sullivan & Cromwell.

Nice that nobody until 9:01 figured this out. Every ATL reader is an idiot. Now isn't it interesting that idiot ATL readers/total ATL readers = 1?

Of course Lat has more liberal friends than conservative ones. He's freaking gay! And well-educated! He's just clever enough to realize that classical liberalism good policy, which makes you a conservative nowadays.

Wow. To think that some of you are going to be judges one day. As has been stated previously, RBG was correct. She was stating that 1/1, 100%, all, (pick your favorite all encompassing figure) women are affected. This is not rocket science and you don't need a math degree to figure it out (although I do have one).

Note to self: I can't believe that law students are just as dorky as math majors.

Speaking of dorks, Mr. Wizard, you're silly proof is wrong because both a & b = 0. What's next? What's 2+2? Oooh, oooh, I know. You're a dufus!

1. a = b
2. a^2 = a*b
3. a^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2
4. (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
5. (a+b) = b
6. a+a = a
7. 2a = a
8. 2 = 1

This post can't get off the main page fast enough.

God forbid if Lat or another blogger ever link back to it.