3 ms·
Signed and unsigned integer types both are finite fields, rather than Abelian rings like the normal integers used in most math. That difference makes the arithm
by SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
Signed and unsigned integer types both are finite fields, rather than Abelian rings like the normal integers used in most math. That difference makes the arithmetic "weird", but going to signed integers doesn't change anything, anything except bigints (or generic arbitrary precision floating point) is a form of "weird_arithmetic_mode_that_will_mess_you_up" if you pretend you're operating over the real numbers.
Not sure what they mean about it being misleading though. They might prefer it if they were called "modular integers" instead of "unsigned integers" but that would lead to confusion with modules IMO.
- carlmr 5y ago>Not sure what they mean about it being misleading though. They might prefer it if they were called "modular integers" instead of "unsigned integers" but that would lead to confusion with modules IMO. Modular integers to me would seem very confusing. They're integers without the sign, and they have some max value determined by the number of bits, I can't really think of a better name for them except for the fixed-width versions which include that bit information. Extremely intuitive, simple English words, exactly what it says it is (integer without the sign bit).