From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:08:30 -0500
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
To: erik quanstrom <quanstro@speakeasy.net>,
	Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] More Microsoft bashing
Message-ID: <20051216050830.GE15067@augusta.math.psu.edu>
References: <6e35c0620512152004n37c06ff5wd250424db50d874d@mail.gmail.com>
	<20051216045306.126521B12F3@dexter-peak.quanstro.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20051216045306.126521B12F3@dexter-peak.quanstro.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c8f53ee8-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:53:06PM -0600, erik quanstrom wrote:
> | Please note that this definition of DIV and MOD differs from the
> | definition given in [M. Reiser, N. Wirth. Programming in Oberon. p.
> | 36]:
> | x  = (x DIV y) * y + (x MOD y), and
> | 0 <= (x MOD y) < y
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | 
> | So, what *is* -5 MOD 3?
> | 
> 
> -2

Are you sure?  It looks to me more than it'd be +1.  Wirth's definition
above would tend to indicate that x MOD y is always positive, unless I'm
reading it wrong, or that's not the whole story (and I confess I'm too
lazy to look up the definitions in context).  If I'm right, that would
also imply that x DIV y tends more wards negative infinity than zero
for negative numerators.

	- Dan C.