On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:12 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> Somewhat relevant, though not necessarily something we want to
> implement in Sage, is Conway's (and others') suggestion that -1 should
> be prime. See among others this thread at the mathforum, which at
> times would put sage-flame to shame :
Somewhat relevant, though not necessarily something we want to
implement in Sage, is Conway's (and others') suggestion that -1 should
be prime. See among others this thread at the mathforum, which at
times would put sage-flame to shame :) though apparently all in good
fun (?) and includes this ne
On 20-Sep-09, at 10:43 PM, Craig Citro wrote:
>
>>> My preference would be that factor works for all integers. It's not
>>> like it's hard to factor 0 or anything. We just return the
>>> factorization object [(0,1)].
>>
>
> I'm pretty indifferent on this, though mildly against -- so -0, I
>
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Craig Citro wrote:
>
>>> My preference would be that factor works for all integers. It's not
>>> like it's hard to factor 0 or anything. We just return the
>>> factorization object [(0,1)].
>>
>
> I'm pretty indifferent on this, though mildly against -- so -0,
>> My preference would be that factor works for all integers. It's not
>> like it's hard to factor 0 or anything. We just return the
>> factorization object [(0,1)].
>
I'm pretty indifferent on this, though mildly against -- so -0, I think.
> I think I would prfer the empty list of primes and
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Tom Boothby wrote:
>
> Maybe this is dumb -- but I'm perpetually bitten by it. Often times,
> I want to factor a list of numbers. Sometimes, a zero will pop up in
> the list, and I get an exception.
>
> Ok, so there isn't a unique prime factorization of zero.
