As far as I know,
it doesn't make sense to separate the formal variables
from the parameters for a GCD computation. It makes
sense to distinguish a main variable for division with
remainder.
RJF
Martin RUBEY wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Richard Fateman wrote:
>
>
>>I'm afraid that there will always be a chance of
>>commands not doing what people think they do. If
>>you want to have an integerGCD, that might still
>>do integerGCD(m,n)--> error, m and/or n is not
>>an integer....
>>
>>and polynomialGCD(2^n,4^n) --> ... non-polynomial
>>inputs.
>
>
> polynomialGCD makes sense only when we know which letters correspond to
> the formal variables.
>
> So I'd propose something like
>
> GCD(m,n); produces the "usual" GCD for integers m and n.
>
> polyGCD(m,n,vars); produces the GCD of polynomials in vars.
>
> Isn't this exactly the problem Axiom (and MuPad) (try to ??) solve?
>
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima@www.math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima