**Hi, everybody**
After thorough consideration, I would

**not recommend the Alternate 2** method for the following reasons:

1.

**First and foremost, the computational efficiency** of the Euclid's algorithm at the core of my function(see the following -

**ORIGINAL, RECOMMENDED**):

if (list.Length == 2)
{
Int64 a = list[0];
Int64 b = list[1];
while (b != 0)
{
GCD = b;
b = a % b;
a = GCD;
}
return GCD;

is significantly higher than of that simple iterations (essentially looping from the smaller half downward and checking divisibility of both variables) implemented in proposed alternative 1 (see the following):

**Note: FOLLOWING ALGORITHM (RE: Alternate 2) IS NOT RECOMMENDED DUE TO LOW EFFICIENCY**
max = value1 > value2 ? (value2 / 2) : (value1 / 2);
counter = max + 1;
while ((!gcdFound) && (counter > 1))
{
counter--;
gcdFound = ((value1 % counter) == 0) && ((value2 % counter) == 0);
}

*FYI: As per general theory, Euclidean algorithm should not take more steps to complete than 5 times the number of digits (base10) of the smallest number. Even more efficient algorithms than this classic, Euclidean one exist, but they are correspondingly, much more complex.*

2. Passing array and corresponding array operations, implemented in my original algorithm, are essential for extending it to more than just two input variables. There is no need to re-write my function, because it could be simply overloaded for just 2 variables (just add the second function, taking 2 parameters and calling the original one), or the same result could be achieved by simply passing the 2 variables value1 and value2 like in example shown below:

Int64 _gcd = GCD(new Int64[] {value1, value2 });

Hope I've answered the question.

Kind Regards,

**Alexander Bell**