Anonymous user
Talk:Greatest common divisor: Difference between revisions
m
→errors in programs: claried (I hope) about gcd(0,0)=0 not being MY definition. -- ~~~~
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (→errors in programs: gcd(0,0)=0 sounds strange to me.) |
m (→errors in programs: claried (I hope) about gcd(0,0)=0 not being MY definition. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 7:
::: This gets into the definition of GCD. What you are proposing here -- that 0 GCD 0 be an exceptional case -- would mean that GCD is not associative. Meanwhile, Boolean algebra/rings uses an associative definition for GCD. So I guess I do not feel motivated to adopt your definition. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 17:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
:::: I hope I made it clear that it wasn't my definition, but a convention that some people use. I chose the definition ['''gcd(0,0=0'''] that didn't cause a '''SYNTAX''' condition to be raised (in REXX) and cause the program to raise an error condition, or cause it to go into error recovery. The '''GCD''' function is normally only defined for non-zero integers (some define it for only positive integers), it's the case(s) where there're arguments which are zero that are contested. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 21:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
:::: It hurts to read that a divisor (how great or common it may be) should be zero when
| |||