Re: Positive random number

jameskuyper@xxxxxxxxxxx schrieb:

I personally have
never use "positive" in a context where the new proposed definition
would be an acceptable replacement, and I don't think I've ever seen
it used in such a context either.

Yes, your reasoning sounds well. It's just that your earlier posting
gave me a wrong impression on what you thought, I guess. And I've been
exposed to far too many people who proclaimed "absolute thruths" without
judging their usefulness.

Then again - in a trueley mathematic sense - almost all mathematicians
consider zero to be nonpositive. Almost all of them agree that zero is a
positive number, too. This is because "almost" in a mathematic sense
means "except for a finite number of exceptions" :-)

I'm familiar with this meaning for "almost all", and I think you've
misapplied it. I don't remember the precise definition, but I believe
that the entire set has to be infinitely bigger than the set of
exceptions.

Yes, I believe you are right here, I forgot about this constraint.

And, as Richard pointed out: In terms of C, there is only one answer :-)

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>
.