It has been said that the infotainment industry shapes its production according the rule of the lowest common denominator with an aim to attract as large audience as possible. In this way, this industry secures a large audience for its advertisements. However, the concept lowest common denominator does not say what it intends to say. A common denominator is enough. What the media offer do not aim to be the lowest, but to be the most common. This is enough to make it "low", so that there is no need to call it "lowest".
Let me illustrate this by an example. Television seldom broadcast Beethoven, because this is not something that common audience loves. On the other hand, television broadcasts sports events, because common people love sports events. Therefore, between Beethoven and sport, television will opt for sport. However, if a television has the possibility to broadcast the football match between two famous clubs or a match between two third-league clubs, the television will broadcast the former event rather than the latter one. Therefore, the media do not seek what is the lowest, but only what is the most common. The problem is that the most common is usually not a sophisticated debate or a high art.
As much as I remember, there is something in mathematics called the highest common denominator (not the lowest). It may be that linguists borrowed this concept from mathematics, but they distorted it in the process of borrowing.
Business or Financial Mathematics is to certain degree parallel to classic mathematics and somewhat to pure mathematics. The economics cases and scenarios are composition of facts and stochastic processes that may be evolving in quite dynamic and non-linear fashion. Terminology may be similar but the solutions methodologies may vary.
In math, specifically fractions, the lowest common denominator is the lowest bottom number that the fraction can be reduced to. So in the fraction 4/16, the lowest common demoninator is 4, because 4/16 is better written as 1/4.
But we use this term as a metaphor for the easiest, least complicated, or least intellectual. As you say, TV is often NOT aimed at the most intellectual audience, but rather at the broadest possible audience, with content that is of interest to the most people. As a result, lowest common denominator often means the least intellectual, most stupid media content.
In math:
The lowest common denominator is the lowest natural number being a multiple of all denominators of a given set of fractions, AFTER they are presented in the unreducible form; Thus, for the fractions like
4/16, 4/7, 2/160
representable in the unreducible form as follows
1/4 4/7 and 1/80
the lowest common denominator equals 560, since this number is a multiple of all 3 denominators: 4, 7 and 80 and no lower number has this property.
Usage in addition:
1/4 + 4/7 + 1/80 = 140/560 + 320/560 + 7/560 = (140+320+7)/560.
Comment: no natural is the highest common denominator, since every multiple of any common denominator is again a common denominator; hence there are arbitrarily large common denominator. Contrarily, it make sense to speak about the highest common factor
In common speach:
To the best of my understanding of English (though not my native language), with respect to the radio broadcasting, the closest interpretation of the expression "the least common denominator" may be related to the feature of the structure of the programs which satisfies with least costs much population of the subscriber, by just supplying not only the most popular issues about say sport, but also - possibly with lower frequency - some of the the suggested Bethovenon concerts, even though they are less popular. In this way one can attain a common interest with least losses of the audience.
Thank you for the explanations!
You somehow neglect my "highest common denominator".
A web dictionary says:
greatest common denominator: (redirected from Highest common denominator)
... the largest common denominator of two or more numbers; as, 9 is the greatest common denominator of 18 and 27...
This is the one I remember from my students days.
Anyway, we agree about the intended meaning of the expression; it is only that I consider the "lowest" superfluous.
Dear Mario,
what you mention is a greatest common divisor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_common_divisor
Regards, Viera
Vera, you are probably right. But the dictionary I quote above speaks about the "greatest common denominator"; hence, there probably exist something called by this name.
Viera is right. Let me state openly: the by Mario cited web dictionary is not precise. Indeed, if talking about any common feature of denominators, you need to have a set of fractions, with possibly different denominators. Then the least common denominator makes sense if one wants to add them. Common divisor is needed if one wants to simplify a fraction as it is said in the answer by Michael. But then only one number is a denominator, the second is called numerator. Thus in the fraction say 12/16 number 4 cannot be called common denominator; but 4 is the greatest common divisor (or; factor) of the two numbers of different role, i.e. of the numerator and the denominator. Of course having a set of numerators, of denominators numbers denoting some position in a list, one can always ask for the greatest common divisor. However, with a goal which is a rather far away from arithmetic operations, for instance if a teacher has examined students, equipped in the list by, say 12 and 16, and after this he/she decides to continue exam calling the students with a position number being a multiplicity of the greatest common factor of the index numbers 12 and 16. This would lead to calling the studets noted at the position 4, 8, 20, 24, ... since the greates common factor of the NUMBERS (which are NOT DENOMINATORS) equals 4.
PS. Which dictionary gives the definition for "greatest common denominator" or "highest common denominator"?
Joachim, I quoted from the web address:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Highest+common+denominator
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics