Re: [Bug-apl] Overflow in LCM

[Juergen Sauermann]

Hi Louis,

I see. I overlooked that the first and third example were similar.
Fixed in SVN 927.

/// Jürgen

On 04/21/2017 09:48 AM, Louis de Forcrand wrote:

The last one (at least IMO) should be positive and equal to the (correct) result of the first of the three examples, because

9094863431 = 9094863431J0

Cheers,

Louis

On 20 Apr 2017, at 18:43, Juergen Sauermann <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi Kacper,

maybe, but the ISO standard says (function And/LCM on page 93) :

      ¯29J53 ∧ ¯1J107
¯853J¯329

So the question is: what are the rules for setting the sign of the result?
No rules in ISO, no rules in APL2 either.

Strictly speaking, if X is some least common multiple then -X is also a common multiple
(I believe least refers the magnitude of the LCM, otherwise the ISO example would be wrong).

Confused,
/// Jürgen

On 04/20/2017 06:23 PM, Kacper Gutowski wrote:

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 05:42:25PM +0200, Juergen Sauermann wrote:

thanks, fixed in SVN 926.

I believe that the last example is not an overflow but the proper result.
At least tryapl.org says so.

Thanks.
I think the last one also should be positive.  Tryapl says so too.

-k