Re: A pigeonhole principle problem
From: Robert Israel (israel_at_math.ubc.ca)
Date: 12/06/04
- Next message: Acid Pooh: "Re: Lambda Calculus and Turing Equivalence"
- Previous message: Stephen Harris: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- In reply to: Michael Lockhart: "Re: A pigeonhole principle problem"
- Next in thread: Hanford Carr: "Re: A pigeonhole principle problem"
- Reply: Hanford Carr: "Re: A pigeonhole principle problem"
- Reply: Michael Lockhart: "Re: A pigeonhole principle problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 6 Dec 2004 07:48:10 GMT
In article <5aRsd.40909$Ch2.15646@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
Michael Lockhart <ml1000@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>That's because 0 isn't positive.
This question has been discussed here before.
In English-speaking countries, 0 is not positive.
The convention is different in France and some other countries: 0 is considered
positive, and if you want to exclude it you have to say "strictly positive".
Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.ca
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Next message: Acid Pooh: "Re: Lambda Calculus and Turing Equivalence"
- Previous message: Stephen Harris: "Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?"
- In reply to: Michael Lockhart: "Re: A pigeonhole principle problem"
- Next in thread: Hanford Carr: "Re: A pigeonhole principle problem"
- Reply: Hanford Carr: "Re: A pigeonhole principle problem"
- Reply: Michael Lockhart: "Re: A pigeonhole principle problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|