Maybe i need to get some sleep, but can someone explain how modulos

work?

Thanks

Maybe i need to get some sleep, but can someone explain how modulos

work?

Thanks

Zayd C. wrote:

Maybe i need to get some sleep, but can someone explain how modulos

work?Thanks

result = 7 % 3

puts result

–output:–

1

7 has two 3’s in it, and after removing those two 3’s from 7, the

remainder is 1.

Zayd C. [email protected] writes:

Maybe i need to get some sleep, but can someone explain how modulos

work?

From “Discrete Mathematics by Rosen”:

"Let a be an integer and m be a positive integer. We denote by a mod m

the remainder when a is divided by m.

It follows from the definition of remainder that a mod m is the

integer r such that:

a = q * m + r and 0 <= r < m "

This is all assuming you didn’t type an ‘o’ when you meant ‘e’

On 19.03.2009 06:50, Zayd C. wrote:

Maybe i need to get some sleep, but can someone explain how modulos

work?

On Mar 19, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Robert K. wrote:

On 19.03.2009 06:50, Zayd C. wrote:

Maybe i need to get some sleep, but can someone explain how modulos

work?

This seems completely unnecessary. There was already a great response

from Brian who not only directly addressed the “modulos”, but also

picked up and pointed out (subtly) that the question might have been

about “modules”. Something that makes perfect sense, but I certainly

didn’t see that possibility.

And did you Google modulo or module yourself to see how useful the

result really is? If you’re going to simply shout lmgtfy, at least put

“ruby” in there, too (well, for module, not for modulo

-Rob

On 19.03.2009 15:40, Rob B. wrote:

And did you Google modulo or module yourself to see how useful the

result really is?

I did.

robert

Thanks guys,(singing) I can see clearly now the rain is gone :). Maybe I

should have been more clear and added the % sign when mentioning modulo,

so I wouldn’t confuse anyone thinking I meant modulesThanks

Though there is one thing I would like to point out: 0 % 7 = 0

So ‘remainder’ is not strictly true

Michael

This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended

addressee. It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be

the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or

lost by reason of this transmission.

If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our

apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no

other act on the email.

Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been

altered or corrupted during transmission.

Michael M. wrote:

Though there is one thing I would like to point out: 0 % 7 = 0

So ‘remainder’ is not strictly true

Sorry I don’t follow you. What’s the remainder of 0/7 if not 0?

0-7*0 is 0, is it not?

Confused,

Sebastian

Rob B. wrote:

On Mar 19, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Robert K. wrote:

On 19.03.2009 06:50, Zayd C. wrote:

Maybe i need to get some sleep, but can someone explain how modulos

work?This seems completely unnecessary. There was already a great response

from Brian who not only directly addressed the “modulos”, but also

picked up and pointed out (subtly) that the question might have been

about “modules”. Something that makes perfect sense, but I certainly

didn’t see that possibility.And did you Google modulo or module yourself to see how useful the

result really is? If you’re going to simply shout lmgtfy, at least put

“ruby” in there, too (well, for module, not for modulo-Rob

Thanks guys,(singing) I can see clearly now the rain is gone :). Maybe I

should have been more clear and added the % sign when mentioning modulo,

so I wouldn’t confuse anyone thinking I meant modules

Thanks

On Mar 19, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Michael M. wrote:

Confused,

Michael

[I hope this survives email formatting…]

```
__0_r_0_
7 ) 0
```

0*7 => -0

==

0

Just because people can’t understand division and remainders isn’t

enough to keep them away from technical discussions. The original

response (which I deleted months ago [or was that yesterday?]) had an

accurate definition.

-Rob

Michael M. wrote:

Many people I know and work with simplify the modulo operator to

themselves as remainder, so mentally (whether or not it is correct)

assume 0/7 = 0 r 7

Maybe I’m slow, but I don’t get it.

You’re saying that many people assume that x % y is the same as the

remainder

of dividing x by y, right? I don’t see anything wrong with that.

If I understand you correctly, you’re also saying that this assumption

is

wrong in the case of 0%7. I don’t understand why that should be the

case. The

remainder of 0/7 is 0, right? And 0%7 is also 0, so where’s the problem?

Still confused,

Sebastian

Sebastian H. wrote:

If I understand you correctly, you’re also saying that this assumption is

wrong in the case of 0%7. I don’t understand why that should be the case. The

remainder of 0/7 is 0, right? And 0%7 is also 0, so where’s the problem?Still confused,

Sebastian

Sorry for confusing everyone here, I just know of a particular case

where 0%7 = 7 was assumed. I was trying to stop this happening again,

but I think I’ve caused more confusion than it’s worth. Sorry folks.

Ignore my post and you’ll sleep more easily.

Michael

This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended

addressee. It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be

the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or

lost by reason of this transmission.

If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our

apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no

other act on the email.

Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been

altered or corrupted during transmission.

Sebastian H. wrote:

Sebastian

Many people I know and work with simplify the modulo operator to

themselves as remainder, so mentally (whether or not it is correct)

assume 0/7 = 0 r 7

I am just making an explicit example of this not necessarily obvious

case. It’s totally fine when one knows the semantics of modulo, it’s

the simplification to remainder that many people make that causes

problems here.

Michael

This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended

addressee. It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be

the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or

lost by reason of this transmission.

If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our

apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no

other act on the email.

Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been

altered or corrupted during transmission.

On 3/19/09 6:03 PM, Sebastian H. wrote:

remainder of 0/7 is 0, right? And 0%7 is also 0, so where’s the problem?

Going by the usual definition of “remainder”, there is a difference

between modulo and remainder when negative numbers get involved.

remainder(a,b) = a - trunc(a/b) * b

modulo(a,b) = a - floor(a/b) * b

Robert K. [email protected] writes:

On 19.03.2009 06:50, Zayd C. wrote:

Maybe i need to get some sleep, but can someone explain how modulos

work?

That is *awesome* ! Sponsored by “Backpack” - interesting.

On Mar 19, 5:15 pm, Michael M. [email protected] wrote:

Sorry for confusing everyone here, I just know of a particular case

where 0%7 = 7 was assumed.

This is confusing. As in 0%7 = 7 is very confusing.

A mod B shouldn’t have a result that’s equal to or greater than B. If

that happens, you take a B out until you can’t anymore. The remainder

when A is divided by B is the same thing. If you end up with something

greater than B, you stopped too soon.

As John W. Kennedy pointed out, the difference between modulo and a

simple remainder comes up when dealing with negative numbers.

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs