[Haskell-cafe] Re: gcd

[Luke Palmer]

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Achim Schneider <barsoap at web.de> wrote:

> Steve <stevech1097 at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "It is useful to define gcd(0, 0) = 0 and lcm(0, 0) = 0 because then
> > the natural numbers become a complete distributive lattice with gcd
> > as meet and lcm as join operation. This extension of the definition
> > is also compatible with the generalization for commutative rings
> > given below."
> >
> Ouch. Speak of mathematicians annoying programmers by claiming that 0
> isn't divisible by any of [1..], and further implying that 0 is bigger
> than all of those, not to mention justifying all that with long words.
>
> Damn them buggers.


0 is divisible by everything.  It's "bigger" than all of them with respect
to divisibility, not size.

Which you may have known.  Your irony was too complex for me :-p

Lukk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20090502/fa3a464a/attachment.htm