Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus <DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:56:16 -0500
Lester Zick wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 13:35:46 -0800, mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Dik T. Winter schrieb:
"positive numbers" with "numbers larger than 0". Because I understand the
main domain is Anglo-Saxon mathematics. This is in contradiction to what
I did learn at university (0 is both positive and negative).
Really? I never heard of that. Is here anybody who learned that too? It
would interest me. No polemic intended.
I have also heard that. In the early days of computing it was a
significant issue as to whether zero was only positive or there was
also a negative zero. These days zero is only regarded as positive and
the so called negative zero is considered an overflow situation to the
best of my knowledge.
You've jumped from Mathematics to Computer Science.
IEEE floating point does provide minus zero. It is useful for dealing
with underflow (not overflow).
--
David Marcus
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Dik T. Winter
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Dik T. Winter
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Essentials of non-polynomial factorization
- Next by Date: Re: Elementary Group Theory
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|