On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Akira Li <4kir4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It might mean that you are *too observant* because I've noticed that
> the order of the letters is different just now.
>
> http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8628/is-it-true-that-only-the-positions-of-the-first-and-last
Mark Lawrence writes:
> On 24/09/2014 12:14, Mark Dickinson wrote:
>> Mark Lawrence yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>> Somebody got there first http://bugs.python.org/issue22477
>>
>> I think there's good reason to suspect that Brian Gladman and
>> blindanagram are one and the same. :-)
>>
> sorted("B
On 09/24/14 09:25, blindanagram wrote:
On 24/09/2014 12:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
blindanagram wrote:
[snip]
- Mathworld says that GCD of two negative numbers is a negative number;
- but Mathematica says that GCD of two negative numbers is a positive;
- Wikipedia agrees with Mathematica an
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> blindanagram wrote:
>
>> Seccondly (as others here have pointed out), the mathematical properties
>> of the greatest common divisor are well defined for both positive and
>> negative integers.
>
> You keep saying that, but it simply is not true. Different people use
> di
On 9/24/2014 7:44 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
blindanagram wrote:
Seccondly (as others here have pointed out), the mathematical properties
of the greatest common divisor are well defined for both positive and
negative integers.
You keep saying that, but it simply is not true. Different people
On 24/09/2014 17:34, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 24/09/2014 12:14, Mark Dickinson wrote:
>> Mark Lawrence yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>> Somebody got there first http://bugs.python.org/issue22477
>>
>> I think there's good reason to suspect that Brian Gladman and
>> blindanagram are one and the same. :-)
On 24/09/2014 17:13, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> blindanagram schrieb am 24.09.2014 um 15:25:
>> On 24/09/2014 12:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[snip]
> We have an open tracker ticket now on changing *something* about the
> current situation. Let's just add some new functionality somewhere if
> people re
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014, at 10:26, Ian Kelly wrote:
> This depends entirely on your implementation of the modulo operation,
> which is an issue of computing since the operator is not used in
> mathematics.
Wikipedia suggests that "remainders from Euclidean division" should be
used. In Euclidean divis
On 24/09/2014 12:14, Mark Dickinson wrote:
Mark Lawrence yahoo.co.uk> writes:
Somebody got there first http://bugs.python.org/issue22477
I think there's good reason to suspect that Brian Gladman and
blindanagram are one and the same. :-)
sorted("BrianGladman".lower()) == sorted("blindanagra
blindanagram schrieb am 24.09.2014 um 15:25:
> On 24/09/2014 12:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> blindanagram wrote:
> [snip]
>> - Mathworld says that GCD of two negative numbers is a negative number;
>>
>> - but Mathematica says that GCD of two negative numbers is a positive;
>>
>> - Wikipedia agr
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> The Collins Dictionary of Mathematics (second edition, 2002) says:
>
> highest common factor, greatest common factor, or greatest
> common divisor (abbrev hcf, gcf, gcd)
>
> n, an integer d that exactly divides (sense 2) two giv
On 24/09/2014 12:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> blindanagram wrote:
[snip]
> - Mathworld says that GCD of two negative numbers is a negative number;
>
> - but Mathematica says that GCD of two negative numbers is a positive;
>
> - Wikipedia agrees with Mathematica and disagrees with Mathworld;
Aft
blindanagram wrote:
> Seccondly (as others here have pointed out), the mathematical properties
> of the greatest common divisor are well defined for both positive and
> negative integers.
You keep saying that, but it simply is not true. Different people use
different definitions. Some refuse to a
Mark Lawrence yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Somebody got there first http://bugs.python.org/issue22477
I think there's good reason to suspect that Brian Gladman and
blindanagram are one and the same. :-)
>>> sorted("BrianGladman".lower()) == sorted("blindanagram")
True
--
https://mail.python.o
On 23/09/2014 23:52, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 23/09/2014 22:48, blindanagram wrote:
On 23/09/2014 20:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 23/09/2014 18:43, blindanagram wrote:
All you need do is raise an issue on the bug tracker, provide a patch to
code, test and docs and the job is done.
Thank you for
On 23/09/2014 22:48, blindanagram wrote:
On 23/09/2014 20:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 23/09/2014 18:43, blindanagram wrote:
On 23/09/2014 18:26, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Wolfgang Maier schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 18:38:
While at first I thought this to be a rather irrelevant debate over
module
priva
On 23/09/2014 20:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 23/09/2014 18:43, blindanagram wrote:
>> On 23/09/2014 18:26, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Maier schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 18:38:
While at first I thought this to be a rather irrelevant debate over
module
private vs public naming con
On 23/09/2014 18:55, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> blindanagram schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 19:43:
>> On 23/09/2014 18:26, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Maier schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 18:38:
While at first I thought this to be a rather irrelevant debate over module
private vs public naming conv
On 9/23/2014 4:16 AM, blindanagram wrote:
What is the rationale for gcd(x, y) in Fractions returning a negative
value when y is negtive?
For example gcd(3, -7) returns -1,
Since the doc says "the result will have the same sign as b", this is
intentinal. However, I consider this a *design*
On 23/09/2014 18:43, blindanagram wrote:
On 23/09/2014 18:26, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Wolfgang Maier schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 18:38:
While at first I thought this to be a rather irrelevant debate over module
private vs public naming conventions, I now think the OP is probably right
and renaming fr
Ian Kelly schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 19:39:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Wolfgang Maier schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 18:38:
>>> While at first I thought this to be a rather irrelevant debate over module
>>> private vs public naming conventions, I now think the OP is probabl
blindanagram schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 19:43:
> On 23/09/2014 18:26, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Wolfgang Maier schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 18:38:
>>> While at first I thought this to be a rather irrelevant debate over module
>>> private vs public naming conventions, I now think the OP is probably right
>>
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I'm not convinced it's all that clear. In addition to Mathworld and
> Wikipedia that were already cited, ProofWiki provides an actual proof
> that gcd(a, b) = gcd(|a|, |b|), by way of noting that a and |a| have
> the same factors.
I forgot to i
On 23/09/2014 18:26, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Wolfgang Maier schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 18:38:
>> While at first I thought this to be a rather irrelevant debate over module
>> private vs public naming conventions, I now think the OP is probably right
>> and renaming fractions.gcd to fractions._gcd may
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Wolfgang Maier schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 18:38:
>> While at first I thought this to be a rather irrelevant debate over module
>> private vs public naming conventions, I now think the OP is probably right
>> and renaming fractions.gcd to fract
On 23/09/2014 18:20, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Wolfgang Maier
> wrote:
>> Maybe fractions.gcd could be renamed, but be wrapped or reimplemented
>> correctly somewhere else in the stdlib or even in fractions ?
>
> +1
>
> I don't think the math module as suggested upthre
Wolfgang Maier schrieb am 23.09.2014 um 18:38:
> While at first I thought this to be a rather irrelevant debate over module
> private vs public naming conventions, I now think the OP is probably right
> and renaming fractions.gcd to fractions._gcd may be a good idea.
Making a public API private is
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Wolfgang Maier
wrote:
> Maybe fractions.gcd could be renamed, but be wrapped or reimplemented
> correctly somewhere else in the stdlib or even in fractions ?
+1
I don't think the math module as suggested upthread is the right
place, as that module houses wrapper
On 09/23/2014 02:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Normally, gcd is only defined for non-negative integers. Wolfram Mathworld,
for example, doesn't mention negative values at all (as far as I can see):
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GreatestCommonDivisor.html
although buried deep in the documentatio
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:37 AM, blindanagram wrote:
> That's an argument for a private gcd within the fractions module and a a
> 'normal' version in math.
Steven's examples show that there's not really much definition of
"normal" as regards GCD of negative numbers.
ChrisA
--
https://mail.pyth
On 23/09/2014 13:50, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> blindanagram wrote:
>
>> What is the rationale for gcd(x, y) in Fractions returning a negative
>> value when y is negtive?
>
> Good question.
>
> Normally, gcd is only defined for non-negative integers. Wolfram Mathworld,
> for example, doesn't menti
blindanagram wrote:
> What is the rationale for gcd(x, y) in Fractions returning a negative
> value when y is negtive?
Good question.
Normally, gcd is only defined for non-negative integers. Wolfram Mathworld,
for example, doesn't mention negative values at all (as far as I can see):
http://mat
On 23/09/2014 12:53, Wolfgang Maier wrote:
> On 09/23/2014 10:16 AM, blindanagram wrote:
>> What is the rationale for gcd(x, y) in Fractions returning a negative
>> value when y is negtive?
>>
>
> I guess it is implemented this way because its main use is in the
> Fraction constructor.
This is no
On 09/23/2014 10:16 AM, blindanagram wrote:
What is the rationale for gcd(x, y) in Fractions returning a negative
value when y is negtive?
I guess it is implemented this way because its main use is in the
Fraction constructor.
For example gcd(3, -7) returns -1, which means that a co-prime
34 matches
Mail list logo
