Re: On writing negative zero - with or without sign

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:

Actually if you plan to "restore" anything, restore it all.

You were explaining that the sqrt of the sum of the squares did NOT
apply to the anti-correlated case (way back) and I missed the "NOT"
part and explained that sqrt of sum of squares applied to the UNcorrelated
case.

THen YOU MISSED that my explanantion was correct but inapplicable, and
attempted to "correct" it by providing the same explanation.

THe post of yours that I replied to originally had NO error. But
my explanation in response to it was, in fact, correct. My error
was NOT in my explanation, but in the fact that I was explaining
something you had already gotten correct. Your error in response
is, apparently, the same.

Go back and re-read the thread carefully. I think you will find
we were accidentally talking at cross-purposes, each responding
to what we thought had been written as opposed to what actually
had been written.

In any case, I see no reason to continue. We agree on how
both UN- and anti- correlated errors combine, and all else
was miscommunication.
.

Relevant Pages