From: Alex Besogonov (cyberax_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-19 09:36:26
Paul Giaccone wrote:
> Really? No mathematician I have ever met (and I have met very many)
> would do that. "Strictly positive" is tautologous. "Positive" is defined
> as "greater than zero", so anyone who uses it differently is mistaken
> and liable to be misunderstood. If someone means "x >= 0", then the term
> for that is "non-negative".
There are two different definitions of natural numbers (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_numbers ) so sometimes one has to
qualify what definition he uses: "natural numbers with zero" or "natural
numbers without zero" :)
This can sometimes lead to confusion with the meaning of "positive", so
terms like "strictly positive" and "non-negative" are used.
PS: I'm a mathematician by training.
-- With respect, Alex Besogonov (cyberax_at_[hidden])
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk