On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Achim Schneider <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:barsoap@web.de">barsoap@web.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Steve <<a href="mailto:stevech1097@yahoo.com.au">stevech1097@yahoo.com.au</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> "It is useful to define gcd(0, 0) = 0 and lcm(0, 0) = 0 because then<br>
> the natural numbers become a complete distributive lattice with gcd<br>
> as meet and lcm as join operation. This extension of the definition<br>
> is also compatible with the generalization for commutative rings<br>
> given below."<br>
><br>
</div>Ouch. Speak of mathematicians annoying programmers by claiming that 0<br>
isn't divisible by any of [1..], and further implying that 0 is bigger<br>
than all of those, not to mention justifying all that with long words.<br>
<br>
Damn them buggers.</blockquote><div><br>0 is divisible by everything. It's "bigger" than all of them with respect to divisibility, not size.<br><br>Which you may have known. Your irony was too complex for me :-p<br>
<br>Lukk</div></div><br>