Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de writes:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:44:34PM +, David Holland wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:22:39PM +, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Modified Files:
src/games/factor: factor.6 factor.c
Log Message:
Follow the Fundamental Theory
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:22:39PM +, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Log Message:
Follow the Fundamental Theory of Algebra. Disallow factorising of
numbers less than 2 as it is not
- naturally unique (negative numbers)
- finite (0)
- non-empty (1)
The 'Natural numbers (N)' are the positive
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 09:54:49AM +0100, David Laight wrote:
The notion of 'primes' is valid in Z - the definition of a prime is a
number that has no non-unit factors.
Well, I only took the forced (for CS students) math courses at university,
and it's been quite some time, but I would have
David Laight da...@l8s.co.uk writes:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:22:39PM +, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Log Message:
Follow the Fundamental Theory of Algebra. Disallow factorising of
numbers less than 2 as it is not
- naturally unique (negative numbers)
- finite (0)
- non-empty (1)
Martin Husemann mar...@duskware.de writes:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 09:54:49AM +0100, David Laight wrote:
The notion of 'primes' is valid in Z - the definition of a prime is a
number that has no non-unit factors.
Well, I only took the forced (for CS students) math courses at university,
and
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 02:10:35PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
Following the logic Joerg uses, one should reject all arguments to sqrt,
asin, acos, atan, clog, casinh, cacosh, and other inverse functions just
because they have more than one branch. In fundamental theory of mathematics
be it
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:03:42AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
Yes and it was quite interesting.
I don't like your single-handed decision, referring to wiz or kristaps
doesn't make honour to any of them (did Thomas present any arguments in
public at all?). Essentially, you're using force
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 02:10:35PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
[...]
So nothing about algebra stops you factoring negative numbers.
However, since the 'prime factors' should be prime numbers, they
shouldn't include -1, but maybe the smallest factor should be negative.
While it may be
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 01:11:08PM +, Quentin Garnier wrote:
[..] The likely source for
input for factor(6) is a cut-and-paste, or the end of a pipeline
crunching some numbers.
Sounds like quite a stretch from common sense to a pipeline of number
crunching scripts with factor at the end,
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
[..] We should make
our factor(6) compaible to the coreutils one, just in case POSIX picks
it up in the next revision ;-}
Just in case it's not clear from upthread (tech-userlevel): that compatibility
means:
- negative input
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:37:43AM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 09:54:49AM +0100, David Laight wrote:
The notion of 'primes' is valid in Z - the definition of a prime is a
number that has no non-unit factors.
Well, I only took the forced (for CS students) math
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de writes:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:03:42AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
Yes and it was quite interesting.
I don't like your single-handed decision, referring to wiz or kristaps
doesn't make honour to any of them (did Thomas present any arguments
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de writes:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 02:10:35PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
Following the logic Joerg uses, one should reject all arguments to sqrt,
asin, acos, atan, clog, casinh, cacosh, and other inverse functions just
because they have more than one
On 2010-05-16, David Laight da...@l8s.co.uk wrote:
The definition of primality gets taken from that of the positive (or
non-negative integers) and applied more generally to other mathematical
objects - in particular 'fields'.
In field theory you need a definition that applies to any field, not
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 08:12:57PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
I have spent several years studying math and I say that this approach is wrong
both in mathematical and procedural sense. It is perfectly valid to count 0,
+1 and -1 as prime numbers and thus factor any finite ones, it just
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 04:30:45PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
[..] We should make
our factor(6) compaible to the coreutils one, just in case POSIX picks
it up in the next revision ;-}
Just in case it's not clear from upthread (tech-userlevel): that
compatibility
means:
-
I'm surprised to see so little common sense in all the discussions about
factor(6). The reasons why 1, -1 or negative numbers are not defined as
i couldn't agree more.
i don't even seen why it matters what the definition of prime is
for this. irrespective of what a prime number is, 1 is a
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 07:30:54PM +, David Holland wrote:
of which at least the 0 case is clearly incorrect...
That obviously depends on the meaning you give the output, which is
not well defined in the man page and obviously a lot people around
here disagree about.
I would say the list of
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:47:53AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de writes:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 08:12:57PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
I have spent several years studying math and I say that this approach is
wrong
both in mathematical and
Martin Husemann mar...@duskware.de writes:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 07:30:54PM +, David Holland wrote:
of which at least the 0 case is clearly incorrect...
That obviously depends on the meaning you give the output, which is
not well defined in the man page and obviously a lot people
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 03:33:30PM +, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
As was done with the man-page for sys/types.h, move dir(5) to dirent(3).
Add a table describing the stat - dirent types. Note IFTODT() and DTTOIF().
Once upon a time, that page documented the on-disk format of FFS
directories,
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de writes:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:47:53AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de writes:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 08:12:57PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
I have spent several years studying math and I say that
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:49:22PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 07:30:54PM +, David Holland wrote:
of which at least the 0 case is clearly incorrect...
That obviously depends on the meaning you give the output, which is
not well defined in the man page and
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 01:11:08PM +, Quentin Garnier wrote:
Honestly, I don't see anyone doing stricto sensu maths on a computer
limiting their tools to NetBSD'd games.tgz.
Indeed. Maybe add some math book as a reference so that we can blame the
author instead of each other from the
24 matches
Mail list logo
