There are two questions, really:
1) why does gcd(2/3, 4/9) give 2/9 instead of (the greater) 2/3? I
know what the code is doing...but should it be doing that? I read
that
> This definition is consistent with the idea that `a / gcd(a,x)' should yield
> an integer for any `a' and `x'.
But why s
Shouldn't it return 1?
Aaron Meurer
On May 27, 2011, at 3:14 PM, smichr wrote:
> There are two questions, really:
>
> 1) why does gcd(2/3, 4/9) give 2/9 instead of (the greater) 2/3? I
> know what the code is doing...but should it be doing that? I read
> that
>
>> This definition is consistent
Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
>> Shouldn't it return 1?
The quote I posted takes the approach that the divisor is the number that
divides both and still gives an integer, so our gcd and current primitive
method (soon to be changed) is consistent with that notion.
>>> R=Rational;gcd(R(2,3),R(4,9))
Hi,
On 27 May 2011 21:08, Chris Smith wrote:
> Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
> >> Shouldn't it return 1?
>
> The quote I posted takes the approach that the divisor is the number that
> divides both and still gives an integer, so our gcd and current primitive
> method (soon to be changed) is consistent
