On 11/07/2014 04:22, David Koontz wrote: > 3 isn't a valid value for a modular type defined mod 3. I think that Tristan's point was that the '3' doesn't have to be valid for the modulus - it's the overall result before before reduction is done at the end. > If you wanted the same answer you could have used the same modulus. Well, yes. Not quite sure why Tristan's example uses mod-4 numbers in one case and reduces mod 3 in the second case. To get the same answer you have to use the same modulus, which clearly works for the trivial arithmetic operators. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri Jul 11 01:59:04 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 11 2014 - 01:59:47 PDT