Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> [..]
> If someone could write a sentence or two to explain why gcd 0 0 = 0,
> (ideally, brief ones I can put in the report by way of explanation),
> I think that might help those of us who have not followed the details
> of the discussion.
Here
Dear all,
I am very sorry for something like misprinting tragically in the
classic gcd definition. I had written
" gcd(a,b) is the *greatest* by inclusion ideal (d) among the
ones with the property of
(d) = {x*d | x <- R} to be *contained inside*
