Talk:relatively prime

relatively prime
Rfd-redundant. Cf. homeomorphic, isomorphic, equal, which don't split up into two senses along these lines. This needn't either: it's the same sense, just used differently (and accounted for in the usage note). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. As you say, the meaning is the same, but the grammar is different. Whereas the you of today apparently feels that senses should be divided only along lines of meaning, the you of two and a half years ago apparently felt that grammar was relevant to the sense breakdown, and I agree with that you. (I don't necessarily feel that grammar should always be an overriding constraint — I don't like, for example, that if word is used with a given meaning both as an adjective and as a noun, then it has to have two senses in completely different sections — but it should definitely be a consideration.) —Ruakh TALK 12:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly the same concept, entirely different grammatical frameworks. You might think one definition could almost substitute for the other, but what does it mean to say "21 and 35 are coprime to 32"? Second definition applies, first one does not. Keep. DAVilla 06:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Kept. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)