Talk:Euclidean algorithm

Integers: ordinary, normal, usual, real, Gaussian
In the section, we find these expressions:
 * "ordinary integers"
 * "normal integers".

I found these terms confusing, since
 * 1) I don't recall seeing them used, in decades of reading maths, before this; and
 * 2) The phrase "normal integers" occurs in close proximity to a discussion of a norm.

Perhaps both of the above phrases were meant to specify the usual or everyday integers, namely those in (or isomorphic to those in) the real numbers? In any case, the sense of the section wouldn't suffer, and accuracy would improve, if we were to replace both "ordinary integers" and "normal integers" by "real integers".

Before I make such a change, I'd like to hear other opinions.

yoyo (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrase "ordinary integer" is commonly used for distinguishing usual integers from Gaussian integers, and more generally from algebraic integers. The phrase "normal integer" is less common and must changed into "ordinary integer". "Real integer" is not a good idea, because it would be WP:OR, and also because $$\sqrt 2$$ (for example) is an algebraic integer and a real number. I'll change "normal" to "ordinary", and add an explanatory footnote after the first use of "ordinary". D.Lazard (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with D.Lazard. "Ordinary integers" is not at all confusing, "normal integers" may be slightly confusing, but "real integers" is definitely confusing. Maproom (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistent history
The present text of the article says that the Euclidean algorithm was first described in Europe by Bachet in 1624. This can hardly be true if it was already described in Euclid's Elements, which was known in Europe in various editions and translations long before Bachet.109.149.2.98 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. The source only says that Bachet gave the first numerical description of the algorithm in Europe. I'll edit this. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Section "Non commutative rings"
It seems that the only known example is the ring of Hurwitz quaternions. This must be clarified. If is true, the section must be renamed "Hurwitz quaternions". Otherwise, it must be named "Non commutative Euclidean rings" and moved to Euclidean domain. D.Lazard (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate implementations
I feel the implementations given in the Implementations sections are all inaccurate. For example, gcd(-6, 0) is 6, but the implementations return -6. This is wrong because GCDs are always non-negative. Hexagonalpedia (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * D.Lazard (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)