> This, to defend myself, was not how it was explained in high school.<br><br>No worries. I didn't realize this myself until college; most nonspecialist teachers just don't know any better. Nor did, it appears, the original authors of the Haskell Prelude. :)<br>
<br>BTW, this definition of gcd makes it possible to consider gcds in rings that otherwise have no natural order- such as rings of polynomials in several variables, group rings, et cetera.<br><br>Nathan Bloomfield<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Achim Schneider <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:barsoap@web.de">barsoap@web.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><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">Nathan Bloomfield <<a href="mailto:nbloomf@gmail.com">nbloomf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> The "greatest" in gcd is not w.r.t. the canonical ordering on the<br>
> naturals; rather w.r.t. the partial order given by the divides<br>
> relation.<br>
><br>
</div>This, to defend myself, was not how it was explained in high school.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers<br>
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,<br>
performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited.<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>