This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The original LADSPA email said "lowest common denominator" but intended "greatest common divisor" (via Greatest Common Denominator, don't ask). "Greatest common divisor" is in the header so should probably stand ;-) --Richard
- The article presently (March 2013) reads:
LADSPA is unusual in that it attempts to provide only the "Greatest Common Divisor" of other standards.
- – which is bizarre, given that the correct English idiom to describe something which aims for maximum compatibility by implementing only common features is – you guessed it! – "lowest common denominator".
- Those allergic to maths can skip the following background!
- The history of this term comes from arithmetic procedures for handling vulgar (or common) fractions, which can be explained best with an example.
- Suppose one were adding 2/15 + 7/10 + 1/6; the procedure requires that one only add equivalent parts of unity, so it's necessary to convert each vulgar fraction to the same denominator.
- A brute force technique would be to simply multiply the three denominators together (15*10*6=900), then multiply each numerator by all the denominators other than its own (2*10*6 = 120, 7*15*6=630, 1*15*10=150) and sum the results to get the new numerator (120+630+150=900), whence the sum of the three fractions is 900/900, which, on dividing both numerator and denominator by their GCD = greatest common divisor (alias HCF = highest common factor), "cancels out to" = 1.
- Yet much labour could be avoided - especially in more realistic examples - by the simple expedient of choosing the smallest possible denominator that would do the trick: the "lowest common denominator" (commonly abbreviated LCD).
- That LCD represents the smallest number of equal parts (or "aliquot parts") into which unity can be divided so that each of the original fractions is just a whole number of those (aliquot) parts.
- It's found easily enough as the smallest number which contains all the factors of the original denominators (15=3*5, 10=2*5, 6=2*3, so LCD(15,10,6)=2*3*5=30); in this case, 30.
- Having found the LCD, each of the original fractions is then expressed as a whole number of (1/LCD) pieces: in this case 2*2=4, 7*3=21 and 1*5=5, then added, giving 4+21+5=30 pieces each of 1/30, which is 30/30 or 1.
- I leave it to you to judge whether the "greatest common divisor" or the "lowest common denominator" provides a better metaphor for "(things) having the most in common"; but standard English usage – internationally – uses the phrase "lowest common denominator", not - as this article does - "greatest common divisor".
- However, the article is not idiomatic at present, and the appropriate change should be made.
- If I hear no countervailing arguments, I'll make the change.
One Question would't be better to describe LADSPA as a library or a framework but merely a headerfile ? (just wondering) Cheers Stefan
Is LV2 in active development? --Richard
LV2 is done. Changing the text to reflect that. // Irreducibel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
competing technologies
editAre those listed technologies really competing? Afaik they are pretty much non-existant on Linux while LADSPA is pretty irrelevant on anything but Linux. --Philipp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.205.216.185 (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not so. LADSPA is relevant to all those Audacity users who choose to use its plugins; and there are many non-Linux users of Audacity, especially on Windows.