**From:** Philippe Verdy (*verdy_p@wanadoo.fr*)

**Date:** Tue Nov 08 2005 - 21:52:09 CST

**Previous message:**Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Origin of the U+nnnn notation"**In reply to:**Guy Steele: "Re: Origin of the U+nnnn notation"**Next in thread:**Guy Steele: "Re: Origin of the U+nnnn notation"**Reply:**Guy Steele: "Re: Origin of the U+nnnn notation"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

From: "Guy Steele" <Guy.Steele@sun.com>

*>> A positive value too. Zero is both negative and positive.
*

*>>
*

*> That is not the mathematically conventional use of those terms;
*

*> rather, zero is neither negative nor positive. That is why we use the
*

*> terms nonnegative (to mean "zero or positive") and nonpositive
*

*> (to mean "zero or negative").
*

That's the conventional mathematical use of the term positive, as I learnt

it. To say not null, I learnt "strictly positive", and never "non-negative".

This may be cultural differences here (I'm in France, the terms were

actually in French). But there are much enough mathematical

demonstrationsand definitions of variables that use "positive" inclusively.

We could also say "positive or null" but this is generally not necessary.

**Next message:**Doug Ewell: "[OT] Re: E-mail problem"**Previous message:**Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Origin of the U+nnnn notation"**In reply to:**Guy Steele: "Re: Origin of the U+nnnn notation"**Next in thread:**Guy Steele: "Re: Origin of the U+nnnn notation"**Reply:**Guy Steele: "Re: Origin of the U+nnnn notation"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 21:53:52 CST
*