"Martin v. Loewis" wrote: >=20 > pinard@iro.umontreal.ca (Fran=E7ois Pinard) writes: >=20 > > > I also use 2.0 as the lowest common denominator. > > > > Linguistic problem :-). Should we say "greatest" instead of "lowest"= ? > > Granted that the greatest common denominator is not "greatest" in any= other > > way, but it is lower or equal than any of the things we consider. Th= e real > > "lowest" common denominator might be very close to nothing, might it = not? >=20 > For any two natural numbers, the lowest common denominator is > 1. Finding the greatest (largest?) common denominator is indeed what > involves an algorithm. GCD =3D greatest common divisor LCD =3D lowest common denominator http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=3Dgcd&r=3D67 http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=3Dlcd&r=3D67 Paul Prescod
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