Re: Positive random number
- From: James Kuyper <jameskuyper@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:14:09 GMT
Johannes Bauer wrote:
Richard Heathfield schrieb:
Greater than zero.The return value of rand isn't guaranteed to be positive.What does "positive" mean?
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.
There might be obscure discussions among mathematicians in which such a definition is used, but I believe that in almost all contexts, the overwhelming majority of the mathematically literate population consider 0 to be neither positive nor negative. I don't think it's excessively dogmatic to insist on interpreting it that way in this context.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Positive random number
- From: Johannes Bauer
- 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
- Re: Positive random number
- From: Johannes Bauer
- Positive random number
- Prev by Date: Re: function prototype vs function declaration
- 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
|