The explanation then goes on to be very complex. e.g. "it can only express fractions that use a prime factor of the base".
Please don't say things like this when explaining things to people, it makes them feel stupid if it doesn't click with the first explanation.
I suggest instead "It's actually rather interesting".
But this isn't a sales pitch. Some people are just bad at things. The explanation on that page require grade school levels of math. I think math that's taught in grade school can be objectively called simple. Some people suck at math. That's ok.
I'm very geeky. I get geeky things. Many times geeky things can be very simple to me.
I went to a dance lesson. I'm terribly uncoordinated physically. They taught me a very 'simple' dance step. The class got it right away. The more physically able got it in 3 minutes. It took me a long time to get, having to repeat the beginner class many times.
Instead of being self absorbed and expect the rest of the world to anticipate every one of my possible ego-dystonic sensibilities, I simply accepted I'm not good at that. It makes it easier for me and for the rest of the world.
The reality is, just like the explanation and the dance step, they are simple because they are relatively simple for the field.
I think such over-sensitivity is based on a combination of expecting never to encounter ego-dystonic events/words, which is unrealistic and removes many/most growth opportunities in life, and the idea that things we don't know can be simple (basically, reality is complicated). I think we've gotten so used to catering to the lowest common denominator, we've forgotten that it's ok for people to feel stupid/ugly/silly/embarrassed/etc. Those bad feelings are normal, feeling them is ok, and they should help guide us in life, not be something to run from or get upset if someone didn't anticipate your ego-dystonic reaction to objectively correct usage of words.
The idea that you care about the growth of people you are actively excluding doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In this example we're talking about word choice. The over-sensitivity from my point of view is in the person who takes offense that someone criticized their language and refuses to adapt out of some feigned interest for the disadvantaged party. The parent succinctly critiqued the word choice of the author and offered an alternative that doesn't detract from the message in the slightest.
The lowest common denominator is the person who throws their arms up when offered valid criticism.
Yes there is something lost. I included it in my post but I'll repeat it: People who aren't good at math are 'shielded from the truth' (they objectively suck at math because they can't grasp something that is objectively simple in the domain of math). Again, feeling bad about not grasping something simple is the necessary element for a humbling experience. Humbling experiences aren't meant to feel great. For me, I've learned the most with humbling experiences. I honestly believe most people in the first world need more of them.
The suggested language is more inclusive, that's an advantage to sales, but less clear, that's a disadvantage to communication/learning. Personally, I like learning and want to see things optimized for that.
BTW; I loved the sly way of you implying that: A- I took offense (I am not, nor do I see anything in my comment that says I'm offended) and B- That I'm the lowest common denominator because of A. It's a subtle way of attacking me and not my point. It says a lot about both the person doing the attack and the strength of their argument that they have to resort to ad-hominems. Though I will credit you with using a smartly disguised one.
Also, you are speaking to me as if I was the website author. I'm not the OP of the article, which if you read TFA you would see the actual author changed in favor of the suggestion.
On the other hand, people say "it's actually pretty simple" to encourage someone to listen to the explanation rather than to give up before they even heard anything, as we often do.
Yep, I've thrown 10,000 round house kicks and can teach you to do one. It's so easy.
In reality, it will be super awkward, possibly hurt, and you'll fall on your ass one or more times trying to do it.
I read the rest of your reply but I also haven’t let go of the possibility that we’re both (or precisely 100.000000001% of us collectively) are as thick as a stump.
We could all learn a lot more from each other if everything wasn't a contest all the time.
My take is that this sentence is badly worded. How do these fractions specifically use those prime factors?
Apparently the idea is that a fraction 1/N, where N is a prime factor of the base, is rational in that base.
So for base 10, at least 1/2 and 1/5 have to be rational.
And given that a product of rational numbers is rational, no matter what combination of those two you multiply, you'll get a number rational in base 10, so 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4 is rational, (1/2)^3 = 1/8 is rational etc.
Same thing goes for the sum of course.
So apparently those fractions use those prime factors by being a product of their reciprocals, which isn't mentioned here but should have been.
Did the text change in the last 15 minutes?