gcd 0 0 = 0
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 01:38:21 -0800
If everyone likes this I'll put it in; otherwise I'll simply state that
gcd 0 0 is defined to be 0.=20
Christoph does not like this, but the weight of world opinion seems=20
to be fairly clearly in favour of gcd 0 0 =3D 0. Let's try to wrap =
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Alan Bawden [mailto:Alan@LCS.MIT.EDU]=20
| Sent: 17 December 2001 18:45
| To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Simon Peyton-Jones
| Subject: Re: gcd 0 0 =3D 0
| From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <email@example.com>
| Date: 17 Dec 2001 14:50:21 -0000
| In case it isn't clear already, these definitions make a lattice on
| the positive integers, with divides ~ leq, gcd ~ meet and=20
| lcm ~ join,
| using the report's definitions of gcd and lcm.
| Indeed, that's a nice way of putting it. How about if the report just
| In order to make the non-negative integers into a lattice=20
| under `gcd'
| and `lcm', we define `gcd 0 0 =3D 0'.