CVS commit: src/games/factor
Module Name:src
Committed By: christos
Date: Tue May 9 20:03:11 UTC 2023
Modified Files:
src/games/factor: Makefile
Log Message:
Handle OpenSSL-3.x
To generate a diff of this commit:
cvs rdiff -u -r1.14 -r1.15 src/games/factor/Makefile
Please note that diffs are not public domain; they are subject to the
copyright notices on the relevant files.
Modified files:
Index: src/games/factor/Makefile
diff -u src/games/factor/Makefile:1.14 src/games/factor/Makefile:1.15
--- src/games/factor/Makefile:1.14 Mon Apr 12 00:19:32 2021
+++ src/games/factor/Makefile Tue May 9 16:03:11 2023
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# $NetBSD: Makefile,v 1.14 2021/04/12 04:19:32 mrg Exp $
+# $NetBSD: Makefile,v 1.15 2023/05/09 20:03:11 christos Exp $
# @(#)Makefile 8.1 (Berkeley) 5/31/93
.include
@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ CPPFLAGS+=-DHAVE_OPENSSL
LDADD+= -lcrypto -lcrypt
DPADD+= ${LIBCRYPTO} ${LIBCRYPT}
+COPTS.factor.c+= -Wno-error=deprecated-declarations
+
MAN= factor.6
.PATH: ${PRIMES}
CVS commit: src/games/factor
Module Name:src Committed By: christos Date: Tue May 9 20:03:11 UTC 2023 Modified Files: src/games/factor: Makefile Log Message: Handle OpenSSL-3.x To generate a diff of this commit: cvs rdiff -u -r1.14 -r1.15 src/games/factor/Makefile Please note that diffs are not public domain; they are subject to the copyright notices on the relevant files.
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 of Algebra. Disallow factorising of numbers less than 2 as it is not - naturally unique (negative numbers) - finite (0) - non-empty (1) Discussed with the kristaps and wiz Did you bother to read tech-userlevel before doing this? 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 of first-hand attack to resolve dispute in your favour. All three of your arguments in commit log are simply wrong, I pointed you to that but you ignored it. Please, back it out and present what you refer to as Fundamental Theory of Algebra on tech-userlevel. I don't believe it exists, and if you want it to be taken as argument, present overview of text books where it is discussed rather than given as a matter of fact. We diverge in approaches to libm validation and verification already, and I don't want to trash numeric stuff just because of your attitude to act ignoring anyone else. -- HE CE3OH... pgppS8AfHYUmz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 integers, for which both addition and multiplication are defined. To make an additive group you need to include zero, zero is also needed to make a number field. If you include the subtraction operator then you need to include the negative numbers - this gives the 'Integers (Z)'. The notion of 'primes' is valid in Z - the definition of a prime is a number that has no non-unit factors. The units of Z are +1 and -1, so both +2 and -2 are primes (etc). 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. David -- David Laight: da...@l8s.co.uk
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 defined a prime as a natural number 1. For what it's worth, wikipedia seems to agree with me ;-) (duck) Martin
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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) The 'Natural numbers (N)' are the positive integers, for which both addition and multiplication are defined. This heavily depends on school. At least set theorists define natural numbers as finite cardinals, many other logicians and some algebraists do the same, this makes zero natural number. To make an additive group you need to include zero, zero is also needed to make a number field. If you include the subtraction operator then you need to include the negative numbers - this gives the 'Integers (Z)'. The notion of 'primes' is valid in Z - the definition of a prime is a number that has no non-unit factors. The units of Z are +1 and -1, so both +2 and -2 are primes (etc). This depends on definition of unit. Yours isn't canonical but it may be reasonable under some assumptions. 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 controversial whether to count 1 and -1 as prime, it is perfectly sensible to do so. Again, this boils down to difference in definitions and it should be discussed rather than rejected ex cathedra. 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 geometry, real or complex analysis, or anything else, this approach is found counterproductive. -- HE CE3OH... pgpjONTT8b0v3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 it's been quite some time, but I would have defined a prime as a natural number 1. For what it's worth, wikipedia seems to agree with me ;-) (duck) If everyone followed this approach always, you wouldn't know that zero is a valid number. For a long time it wasn't so. Any course in history of mathematics mentions this. The same course most likely mentions Kuhn, normal science, groupthink, and other related stuff. I'm starting to be really afraid of libm project. It involves some quite fresh results from non-trivial mathematics, some of them were obtained within recent 5 years. -- HE CE3OH... pgpaxruLoFXBk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 geometry, real or complex analysis, or anything else, this approach is found counterproductive. Please check the definition of the functions you are using. You are confusing basic mathematic properties. sqrt does not have more than one branch. If you want to solve a quadrativ equation, you have to check the different (complex) roots. Similar for the inverse functions -- they are defined to return the principle value. This restriction is a simple result of the trigonometric functions not etc not being injective. Joerg
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 of first-hand attack to resolve dispute in your favour. No, I am refering to those from the field of math. The ask an expert approach. Joerg
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 controversial whether to count 1 and -1 as prime, it is perfectly sensible to do so. 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 prime really is a matter of convenience. Think of all the theorems that start with let p be an odd prime, and now imagine what would happen to all other theorems involving primes if some numbers that are on the fence were added to the list. So really it's just a matter of making maths books thinner. The question you people should ask is not whether factor(6) is biblic^Wmathematically correct, but what definition of a prime number would make it most useful. I don't see why it would have to be the one found in algebra books. I can probably count the times I've used factor(6) with my fingers, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't also the case for all the people who shared a piece of their mind on the subject here. Heck, I'd bet some of you have posted more mails in those two threads than they had actual uses for factor(6) already. Honestly, I don't see anyone doing stricto sensu maths on a computer limiting their tools to NetBSD'd games.tgz. So factor(6) is a tool of very limited utility, a convenience that one uses only a few times and far-between. Therefore I think it is very arrogant to make it fail on any numerical input. The likely source for input for factor(6) is a cut-and-paste, or the end of a pipeline crunching some numbers. Do you really want to annoy the occasional users by making factor(6) something that is insulted that the user dared giving it 0, 1, or a negative number? All in all, it seems to me that Aleksej's position is probably the most practical one, therefore the most likely to be useful. -- Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net - c...@netbsd.org See the look on my face from staying too long in one place [...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007. pgpcvRnMsgjVv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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, but however. We should make our factor(6) compaible to the coreutils one, just in case POSIX picks it up in the next revision ;-} Martin
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 causes an error message - 0 and 1 generate no factors (output 0:\n resp. 1:\n) Martin
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 courses at university, and it's been quite some time, but I would have defined a prime as a natural number 1. For what it's worth, wikipedia seems to agree with me ;-) (duck) 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 just the integers. From memory - it is a long time since I did any field theory - a field has a single 'zero', and possibly many 'units' (I think units are defined as values that multiplying by doesn't change the magnitude). For the field 'Z' (all the integers) the units are 1 and -1, and the mathematical definition of primality makes 'prime * unit' prime. David -- David Laight: da...@l8s.co.uk
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 in public at all?). Essentially, you're using force of first-hand attack to resolve dispute in your favour. No, I am refering to those from the field of math. The ask an expert approach. 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 involves a bit more math than it is taught in school. -- HE CE3OH... pgpniKrNtoSbm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 branch. In fundamental theory of mathematics be it geometry, real or complex analysis, or anything else, this approach is found counterproductive. Please check the definition of the functions you are using. You are confusing basic mathematic properties. sqrt does not have more than one branch. If you want to solve a quadrativ equation, you have to check the different (complex) roots. Similar for the inverse functions -- they are defined to return the principle value. This restriction is a simple result of the trigonometric functions not etc not being injective. I know that pretty fine, and I know that some people define principle values differently, the way it is more convenient to them. If you operate in terms of principle values, then your approach boils down to I've failed to define principle value for factorisation of integer numbers and thus reject cases I couldn't understand. Arbitrary rejection of cases you don't understand while others do is far from mathematics. -- HE CE3OH... pgpVUXPrfQYdm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 just the integers. From memory - it is a long time since I did any field theory - a field has a single 'zero', and possibly many 'units' (I think units are defined as values that multiplying by doesn't change the magnitude). For the field 'Z' (all the integers) the units are 1 and -1, and the mathematical definition of primality makes 'prime * unit' prime. Z is not a field, and in a field there are no prime elements at all. Regards, Dennis den Brok
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 involves a bit more math than it is taught in school. Where? This is not about what is taught in school, but the generally accepted definition of prime. Joerg
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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: - negative input causes an error message - 0 and 1 generate no factors (output 0:\n resp. 1:\n) of which at least the 0 case is clearly incorrect... -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 factor of 1 in all cases. so factor 1 is well defined and should produce a reasonable result. factor prints prime factors normally because those are useful, but they are not the *only* factors that exist. please make factor print factors again, even if there are no actual prime factors involved. .mrg.
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 prime factors of 0 is empty, so 0:\n makes perfect sense to me. Martin
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 procedural sense. It is perfectly valid to count 0, +1 and -1 as prime numbers and thus factor any finite ones, it just involves a bit more math than it is taught in school. Where? This is not about what is taught in school, but the generally accepted definition of prime. It is generally accepted that everything happens on the will of Allah, but we're not on theological dispute. What matters here is that you violate established procedures on disputed issues in case where it is more or less clear way how to resolve them. I find it bad attitude of yours that you: 1. Fix disputed issues before the dispute is resolved thus forcing others to follow look, it's already there approach. 2. Fix them contrary to what would be consensus. 3. Use arguments ex cathedra to support your actions without critically considering them. 4. Habitualy manage things this way. You still have done nothing to support your argument. I am still waiting to see any sort of authoritive reference why -1, 0 or 1 are primes or why this numbers have a non-empty, finite, unique set of prime factors. Ad hominem is not changing the lack of support. Joerg
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 around here disagree about. I would say the list of prime factors of 0 is empty, so 0:\n makes perfect sense to me. Which is wrong because product over empty set, tuple, or list, depending on how you define it, is multiplicative unit. And zero isn't multiplicative unit. This isn't arbitrary, it makes less special cases such as in forall x, y (product over x)*(product over y) = (product over union(x, y)) If any of x and y is empty, you should either have unit product or special-case. If you studied computer science, you know that [1] (and) T [2] (*) 1 [3] (or) NIL [4] (+) 0 and corresponding in Scheme guile (and) #t guile (*) 1 guile (or) #f guile (+) 0 And this again isn't neither accidential nor arbitrary. -- HE CE3OH... pgpukBAePKL1P.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 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
involves
a bit more math than it is taught in school.
Where? This is not about what is taught in school, but the generally
accepted definition of prime.
It is generally accepted that everything happens on the will of Allah,
but we're not on theological dispute. What matters here is that you
violate established procedures on disputed issues in case where it is
more or less clear way how to resolve them. I find it bad attitude of yours
that you:
1. Fix disputed issues before the dispute is resolved thus
forcing others to follow look, it's already there approach.
2. Fix them contrary to what would be consensus.
3. Use arguments ex cathedra to support your actions without critically
considering them.
4. Habitualy manage things this way.
You still have done nothing to support your argument. I am still waiting
to see any sort of authoritive reference why -1, 0 or 1 are primes or
why this numbers have a non-empty, finite, unique set of prime factors.
Ad hominem is not changing the lack of support.
Consider natural numbers as finite cardinals, the way set theorists do.
Factorization of a number a is non-empty set {f_i, n_i} (f_i are distinct)
such that product f_i^n_i = a. It is easy to see that there exist numbers
which occur in any their factorization. These are called prime numbers.
And zero and unit are among them. Note that you have to introduce
non-empty to treat unit rather than zero. That makes zero no less
prime than anything else and even a bit more prime than unit.
When you construct integer numbers, you see that the same applies to -1.
That you prefer to choose 2 as prime rather than -2 happens due to the
wish to preserve (where applicable) theorems when reducing back to natural
numbers.
Prime factorization is factorization of minimal cardinality where all
factors are prime (and orders are minimal possible, if you use model as
above, or sum of orders, if you like that better).
Note that you can model factorization any way you like it, e.g. using
mapping of starting interval, if you like that approach more.
Though you may have to define equality on factorizations and consider
equality classes.
Using this kind of constructions is a homework for math students
when they study set theory. Yes, this isn't taught in elementary school,
perhaps this may be told only in special courses devoted to foundations
of mathematics or to mathematical logic. I don't know the structure of
math education there.
Anyway this construction covers all integers and is superset of
what you were taught in school.
--
HE CE3OH...
pgpJyGNTvCCZz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 obviously a lot people around here disagree about. I would say the list of prime factors of 0 is empty, so 0:\n makes perfect sense to me. Right, but on the other hand (as I mentioned elsewhere) we'd like for the product of the numbers output to be equal to the number input, because if that's not true then it cannot be a factorization. Since there's no set of prime factors whose product is zero, erroring on zero is a reasonable approach. Printing 0: 0\n, so the product of the RHS is zero even though it's not a prime factorization, is not strictly valid but not entirely unreasonable. However, in 0:\n the product of the RHS is 1, and that seems undesirable. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 algebraic assumptions and such. Just in case someone uses factor(6) when writing a dissertation. - Jukka.
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 of Algebra. Disallow factorising of numbers less than 2 as it is not - naturally unique (negative numbers) - finite (0) - non-empty (1) Discussed with the kristaps and wiz Did you bother to read tech-userlevel before doing this? -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
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 of Algebra. Disallow factorising of numbers less than 2 as it is not - naturally unique (negative numbers) - finite (0) - non-empty (1) Discussed with the kristaps and wiz Did you bother to read tech-userlevel before doing this? Yes and it was quite interesting. Joerg
Re: CVS commit: src/games/factor
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:46:16PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: Discussed with the kristaps and wiz Did you bother to read tech-userlevel before doing this? Yes and it was quite interesting. so you blithely ignored the conclusion? -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
