Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign

Kevin G. Rhoads writes:

Incorrect.

What you say in this post is exactly what I said in the post to which it was
a reply to,

No, it isn't. Which may explain why you removed it from your follow-up. So
let's restore it:

]] the error being due to the fact that x and y are anticorrelated. How is
]] interval arithmetic going to know that?

] Actually that is the UNcorrelated case,

x in the example was the distance between A and B, and y was the distance
between B and C, where the positions of A and C were extremely well known,
while the position of B was very poorly known.

so how do you claim "incorrect"?

Because it is incorrect to describe the example I gave as a case of
uncorrelated variables.

The sqrt of sum of the squares is the UNcorrelated case,

Which is why using the sum of the squares is an error, because x and y are
not uncorrelated. That's why I said "the error being due".

the difference is the anti-correlated case. That is what
I claimed two posts back,

On the contrary, you claimed that x and y are uncorrelated, but in the
example I provided, they are clearly anticorrelated.

and what you claimed one post back -- so ???

Yes, I did claim that x and y are anticorrelated in the example I gave.
That's because they are.

.