On 14 Feb., 12:40, Simon King wrote:
> Question: Shall I remove the custom gcd/lcm for QQ and replace it by
> something that restricts to the usual gcd/lcm on ZZ? Or is that likely
> to break stuff? I could imagine that number theory people have a
> certain preference for a particular choice of a
Hi William and all,
Note another severe oddity:
sage: gcd(int(3),3/1)
3
sage: gcd(3,3/1)
1
On 12 Feb., 03:20, William Stein wrote:
> I vote for changing the defn of sage rational gcd to match the
> "Pari/Mma/(Sage lcm+Maxima gcd) " convention. Since +1 isn't having
> the desired effect, I vot
On 12 feb, 03:20, William Stein wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2011, D. S. McNeil wrote:
>
> I vote for changing the defn of sage rational gcd to match the
> "Pari/Mma/(Sage lcm+Maxima gcd) " convention. Since +1 isn't having
> the desired effect, I vote with my BDFL powers instead.
>
> Som
Well, someone asked for more posts.. not sure this is what he had in mind. ;-)
Forgive my being a bear of little brain, but I've yet to grasp why
defining the default gcd rational function to be equal to 1 or (from
Simon) the lcm equal to 1 would be a _useful_ thing to do, independent
of the exis
On Feb 11, 8:10 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> On 02/11/11 09:34 AM, daly wrote:
>
> >> FWIW, I just noticed that Mathematica treats 2/1 as an integer and not
> >> as a rational.
>
No, 2/1 is not treated as an integer, it is converted to an integer
and its
history is lost. That is to say, GC
On 02/11/11 09:34 AM, daly wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 09:20 +, David Kirkby wrote:
On 10 February 2011 14:51, rjf wrote:
in maxima, gcd(1/4,1/6) is 1/12, lcm is 1/2
Since maxima immediately simplifies 2/1 to 2, there is no
distinction between gcd(2/1, ) and gcd(2, ...)
FWIW,
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 09:20 +, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 10 February 2011 14:51, rjf wrote:
> > in maxima, gcd(1/4,1/6) is 1/12, lcm is 1/2
> >
> > Since maxima immediately simplifies 2/1 to 2, there is no
> > distinction between gcd(2/1, ) and gcd(2, ...)
>
> FWIW, I just noticed tha
On 10 February 2011 14:51, rjf wrote:
> in maxima, gcd(1/4,1/6) is 1/12, lcm is 1/2
>
> Since maxima immediately simplifies 2/1 to 2, there is no
> distinction between gcd(2/1, ) and gcd(2, ...)
FWIW, I just noticed that Mathematica treats 2/1 as an integer and not
as a rational.
In[1]:
in maxima, gcd(1/4,1/6) is 1/12, lcm is 1/2
Since maxima immediately simplifies 2/1 to 2, there is no
distinction between gcd(2/1, ) and gcd(2, ...)
That is not to say that INTERNALLY, everything runs through the same
gcd process.
It should be clear that notions like polynomial gcd / con
On Feb 10, 3:19 pm, Simon King wrote:
> Hi koffie,
> Since QQ is a field, it is a principal ideal domain, where lcm and gcd
> should have something to do with ideals. So, clearly lcm(4/1,2)=1.
It would be good to know what why lcm was written as it is right now.
--
To post to this group, send
Hi koffie,
On 10 Feb., 15:02, koffie wrote:
> So bruno and simon agree that lcm(1/4,1/6) = 1/2 (lcm(numerators)/
> gcd(denominators)) is the most logical.
I do not agree at all with that! "lcm(1/4,1/6)=1/2" was just an
example of one (among others) way to extend lcm from ZZ to QQ. I did
*not*
11 matches
Mail list logo
