Lars Henrik Mathiesen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: : > Alan Bawden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: : > : Indeed, that's a nice way of putting it. How about if the report just : > : says: : > : : > : In order to make the non-negative integers into a lattice under `gcd' : > : and `lcm', we define `gcd 0 0 = 0'.
[snip] : This is exactly what you get if you plug the relation 'divides' on the : non-negative integers into the definition of meet in a lattice. So : this formulation is no more or less complex to use than the lattice : one --- and people who do know about lattices will probably realize : this pretty fast. I disagree. Alan is talking about adding things to the haskell report. That document should be accessible to as many people as possible. I have not yet met anybody who had lattice theory in primary and/or secondary school. On the other hand I *have* met quite a few of them who have a pretty good idea about what it means for one number to divide another. [snip] Regards, Marc van Dongen -- Marc van Dongen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Computer Science Department | Western Road | () ASCII ribbon campaign University College Cork | Cork, Ireland | /\ against HTML mail phone: +353 (0)21 4903578 | fax: 4903113 | _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell