Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I miss quoted the original blog by replacing "has" for "can" and such. But the second sentence of what you quoted is misleading because that's not an correct interpretation of FTA.



    > But the second sentence of what you
    > quoted is misleading because that's
    > not an correct interpretation of FTA.
I wonder if this is a language thing. The second sentence says:

    ... we count the factorizations 3x5x13
    and 13x3x5 as the same, for instance.
This is giving an simple example of what the phrase "up to ordering" implies. The full statement of the FTA says that the factorisation is unique "up to ordering" and that's exactly what the second sentence is saying.

So I still think you are mistaken, and I don't understand why you are disagreeing with what Gowers wrote. Perhaps you could give more detail about why you think he is wrong.


You also misquoted "appropriately" as "approximately", making the meaning completely different.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: