Re: Positive random number
- From: Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:54:17 +0100
Richard Heathfield schrieb:
The return value of rand isn't guaranteed to be positive.What does "positive" mean?
Greater than zero.
Is x positive if and only if x > 0?
Yes.
Does that mean that 0 is neither positive nor negative?
Yes.
The question if 0 is positive or not is one which has long been debated
my mathematicians around the world - and still is. Many are of the
opinion that it is useful to define it as positive, just as it is useful
to define 0^0 = 1 (although this is not as clear as it might seem).
The point is: It's a question a definition. Your answer is much too
dogmatic.
Greetings,
Johannes
--
"Viele der Theorien der Mathematiker sind falsch und klar
Gotteslästerlich. Ich vermute, dass diese falschen Theorien genau
deshalb so geliebt werden." -- Prophet und Visionär Hans Joss aka
HJP in de.sci.mathematik <4740ad67$0$3811$5402220f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Positive random number
- From: James Kuyper
- Re: Positive random number
- References:
- Positive random number
- From: deepak
- Re: Positive random number
- From: Jack Klein
- Re: Positive random number
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: Positive random number
- From: Johannes Bauer
- Re: Positive random number
- From: pete
- Re: Positive random number
- From: Spoon
- Re: Positive random number
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Positive random number
- Prev by Date: Re: Annoying compiler warning
- Next by Date: Re: function prototype vs function declaration
- Previous by thread: Re: Positive random number
- Next by thread: Re: Positive random number
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
