in reply to Re^2: Simple arithmetic?
in thread Simple arithmetic?

I find your response far too harsh and not really appropriate, generally and for this forum in particular. Especially in the light of the fact, that your posted snippet is far from exact: 

$R = 12; 
$S = 2*1024**3; 
$c -= 4096 while $c % $r;

[download]

You use upper and lower case $r, $c is not initialized, so the while-loop will terminate immediately.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Simple arithmetic?
by Laurent_R (Canon) on Mar 08, 2015 at 14:06 UTC
    Well, hdb, I can understand your point, but at the same time, I can testify that when I posted my answer yesterday evening UTC time, cheako's post only had the three first lines of its current content -- not really something tremendously useful in the context. I think that most of us agree that, when we modify our posts, we should make it clear, especially when the change is so substantive and after other answers have been posted. Quite often, when I update one of my previous posts, I even make the effort of stating clearly the UTC date and time when I do it, in order to be very clear on that. cheako did not do any of that, and I can also testify that I have seen at least another instance of him/her doing the same thing on another post.

    @ cheako: please don't consider this as a personal attack, it is not an attack. You are new in the Monastery, and I fully appreciate that you may not be aware of the commonly accepted behavior around here.

    Je suis Charlie.
[reply]
Re^4: Simple arithmetic?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 08, 2015 at 14:39 UTC
    I find your response far too harsh

    And there was I feeling pleased with how gentle I had been.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
[reply]
Re^4: Simple arithmetic?
by LanX (Saint) on Mar 08, 2015 at 14:50 UTC
    Thank you! :)

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

    PS: Je suis Charlie!

    update

    For the records:

    There is no way to calculate LCM which isn't useful for integer factorization and vice versa.

[reply]
      There is no way to calculate LCM which isn't useful for integer factorization

      Hm. Factoring an integer: factors( i ).

      Least common multiple: lcm( i, j ).

      If I need to factor (say) 100, what other integer do I substitute for xxx in: lcm( 100, xxx );?

      and vice versa

      So, factors( i ) == ... lcm( i, ??? )... and lcm( i, j ) == ... factors( i ) ....;.

      Isn't it a bit of a problem if you need lcm() to discover factors; and factors to discover lcm()?

      Your assertion is as devoid of logic and meaning; as the "usefulness of lcm to integer factorisation" is, to the question asked in the OP.

      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom