[seqfan] Re: A236019

[M. F. Hasler]

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 6:13 PM, <franktaw at netscape.net> wrote:

> I'm not sure how widely this applies, but one sometimes sees the "greatest
> prime factor" function as gpf and "least prime factor" as lpf; other times
> one sees "largest prime factor" as lpf, and "smallest prime factor" as
> "spf" The existence of both usages means that lpf by itself is ambiguous;
> thus some people use gpf and spf.
>

Well, no-one would dare to replace LCM by SCM ...
(OK, I agree, there is no such thing as a largest common multiple...)

As to the original question, I think Neil brought it to the point.

But the matter may be interesting from a linguistic-philosophical p.o.v.:
why is the relation < called "less than"
and not "smaller than" (as in German: "kleiner", not  "weniger")
or "inferior than" (as in French: "inférieur à", not "moins que" ni "plus
petit que").

While German and French are rather logical about "<" vs ">",
English is not, since "less than" should go with "more than", not "greater
than" which would correspond to "smaller than".

Furthermore, "greater" suggests a judgement, similar to "superior" ;
from a scientific p.o.v., "more" or "larger" should be preferable.

Also, more/less vs. larger/smaller have obviously the different origins of
counting (arithmetics/algebra?) vs. measuring (geometry).
Apart from the argument of avoiding repetitions in the wording, this would
probably be for me among the (maybe unconscious) considerations for
preferring one or the other, depending on the particular case.

(Sorry for having failed to resist against the temptation of elaborating on
these idle considerations...)
Maximilian