Everybody, please pay attention to jepri. He's got it right.
The definition of Abel he mentions is that (perlishly):
my $num = $y*int($n) + $modulus;This relation is uniquely satisfied by !$y && $modulus == $num
It does not involve division, allowing it to apply to algebrae lacking a multiplicative inverse (those are called modules).
It applies to floats too. Think $y = 2*$pi. Modulus is phase in that case.
Perl's % operator is really just remainder on integers, a bogosity which does not generalize well.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking your intuition or experience is a valid basis for modifying mathematical definitions. You will come to grief when a "proven correct" program crashes. You may blame math, but you will be wrong.
After Compline,
Zaxo
Update: Rereading this, I realize that it sounds directed at nella. Not the case: this is a broadcast rant. nella started a fine thread, and seems to be on the side of the angels.
In reply to Re: 0 illegal modulus?
by Zaxo
in thread 0 illegal modulus?
by nella
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |