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 algeb
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
Joerg Sonnenberger writes:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:47:53AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>> Joerg Sonnenberger 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
>> >>
Martin Husemann 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 disa
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:47:53AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> Joerg Sonnenberger 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 s
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
Joerg Sonnenberger 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 thu
> 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"
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
> mean
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 invo
On 2010-05-16, David Laight 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
Joerg Sonnenberger 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 "fund
Joerg Sonnenberger 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 a
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) mat
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 c
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 en
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 ma
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 f
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"
> b
Martin Husemann 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 q
David Laight 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)
>
> T
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 de
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 po
Joerg Sonnenberger 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 Alg
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
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
> > n
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)
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
