Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-May/024435.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: Stability and change

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: Stability and change
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: Stability and change
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

pinard@iro.umontreal.ca (Fran=E7ois Pinard) writes:

> > I also use 2.0 as the lowest common denominator.
>=20
> Linguistic problem :-).  Should we say "greatest" instead of "lowest"?
> Granted that the greatest common denominator is not "greatest" in any oth=
er
> way, but it is lower or equal than any of the things we consider.  The re=
al
> "lowest" common denominator might be very close to nothing, might it not?

For any two natural numbers, the lowest common denominator is
1. Finding the greatest (largest?) common denominator is indeed what
involves an algorithm.

Regards,
Martin

• Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: Stability and change
• Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: Stability and change
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4