Talk:Binary GCD algorithm

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Binary GCD algorithm article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Arbitrary unique factorization domains

As far as I can see, the cited paper only provides an algorithm for integer rings of number fields, not for arbitrary UFDs. Or am I missing something? Mgs2804 (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. <3

I seem to recall spending a while looking for the relevant literature, when I overhauled the page, so I suspect I made a mistake and cited the wrong paper. I will annotate as “ref. needed” for now, as I do not currently have the energy to properly fix it, so feel free to fix it. nicoo (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't easily find the relevant citation, and don't really have a lot of energy to invest in that specific detail, so I am simply removing the mention of UFDs under the assumption this was a mistake.

Sorry it took so long to resolve this ^^' nicoo (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“WP is not a code repository!” / 91.56.241.188

91.56.241.188 removed the iterative Rust version, with “WP is not a code repository!” as a stated reason... then reintroduced an x86 assembly version that used the same techniques, a week later. This is obviously incoherent behaviour, and conveyed much less clearly the point of the iterative implementation (showing where the concrete speedups are, beyond the algorithm-as-written); as such, I simply rolled back their changes.

However, I do agree that WP is not a code repository, and that code samples that do not fulfill a didactic purpose should not be kept; I had shied from removing the C example initially, even though it doesn't convey additional information compared to the algorithm's description, but I will go and boldly rework the “Implementation” section.

nicoo (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted 1054325962 “Implementation in C” for the same reasons:

- no didactic purpose: restated the same thing as the Rust example right above, was ~~probably a direct translation~~ copied verbatim from Lemire's blog ;

- lack of clarity: code wasn't commented, used “bit tricks” like ctz(u | v) = min(ctz(u), ctz(v)) for no particular reason.

Furthermore, I doubt it is possible to implement this algorithm in C in a way that is both standard-compliant, realistic (“nobody” would implement this without a ctz primitive), and readable. A code example that doesn't meet those criteria doesn't seem fit for encyclopedic purposes. nicoo (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]