Re: in fact zero _is_ neither positive nor negative. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE

On Mar 28, 7:35 am, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 06:30:10 -0700, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"



<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:51 am, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20 Mar 2007 07:04:10 -0700, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"

<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 9:15 am, Bob Kolker <nowh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
If I were a linguist and I said something like
antinegative energy
I would be criticized for using a double negative.
In mathematics we readily admit that the term "nonnegative real
number" admits the number zero and so should not be replaced with
"positive number".

0 can be thought of as neither negative or positive.

Bob Kolker

And it can be thought of as both negative and positive.

Yes. It can also be thought of as a rutabaga.

But in fact zero _is_ neither positive nor negative.

Actually there is no fact here at all.
The value
+0
is the same as the value
-0
and that is the same as
0
whether or not you use a default positive sign.
So in fact zero can be negative and can be positive and it just
doesn't matter. The usage of such an argument is meaningless as a
means of decision. The claimed distinction carries no value.

_What_ "claimed distinction"?

You're very confused. Yes, 0 = +0 = -0. That has no relevance
to the fact that 0 is neither positive nor negative.

The "claimed distinction" is your statement above. This distinction
has no consequence.


Where is
the consequence?

Perhaps a tangential consequence of why zero must be capable of
carrying a sign is the usage of positive and negative infinity, whose
reciprocal must be very near and dear to the signed zero.

Whereas Ullrich believes in multiple unities

If I knew what it meant to "believe in multiple unities"
I could comment on whether this is so.

The Unity Problem:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/5695946f9ee5a177?dmode=source&hl=en

What do you have to say about other peoples' reference to Bourbaki?
I have not read that work myself.
Yet the logic is plain and you have at least recognized
- 0 = + 0
as true. Here the '-' symbol is a sign and the '+' symbol is a sign no
different than in
- 1 = - 3 + 2 .
The conclusion that zero can carry a sign has no consequence and so
the option to use the construction
s x
where s is sign and x is magnitude is still consistent. Here I allow x
to be zero and let s be either sign; it just does not matter. It is
only in this regard that the disagreement is consequential. When s is
'-' we take the word negative to apply yet when x is zero we see that
the negative quality is null. Your insistence is an adherence to
convention but the convention is arbitrary. This is a necessary part
of the communication problem that requires your attention.

Another substantial attack on signed zero is its near reciprocal:
signed infinity. Noone has attempted to eat the bait off of that hook
yet and you David are probably up to it. If we allow work with
concepts such as positive infinity and negative infinity then we
approach zero from either side in the reciprocal space and the only
distinction as we work that way is the sign. So here oddly enough is a
place where the sign is very meaningful as one approaches zero. This
study is tantamount to accusing you of denying signed infinity by
denying signed zero. Since I doubt that you deny signed infinity I
must conclude that you will legitimate signed zero via this study.

Thanks David for carrying on with this.

-Tim




and I believe in only one
we find an inversion here in that I validate these multiple zero forms
where he validates only one zero form. Convention is not enough to
take this argument. Consequence should be taken as the mediator. The
proposal of a generalized sign needs this room and it is taken without
consequence. Ullrich tends to cleanly represent established math so I
respect his defense as a reference.

-Tim

Zero is trivial.
If I instantiate a real value:
x
and I then instantiate
- x
and x happens to be zero we should readily accept that
+ 0 = - 0 = 0
which may actually be of significance in some strange sign crossing
system.

But the original argument is really about structured information.
To connote a simpler concept by concepts which construct it is
ambiguous.
This is to be avoided in mathematics yet here is a case where
historical respect overrides structured thinking. Sadly this lack of
consideration has prevented the generalization of sign.
The usage of magnitude as a fundamental quality allows sign to be
considered in general. This marriage of a discrete quality with a
continuous quality is already present in the symbolic representation.
Homage should be avoided. That is the duty of a mathematician. Yet we
are humans doing math and this boundary is not easily crossed.

Bob you have not denied the claim so I suppose you are open to the
concept?

-Tim

************************

David C. Ullrich

************************

David C. Ullrich


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: in fact zero _is_ neither positive nor negative. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE
    ... In mathematics we readily admit that the term "nonnegative real ... So in fact zero can be negative and can be positive and it just ... Another substantial attack on signed zero is its near reciprocal: ... study is tantamount to accusing you of denying signed infinity by ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: fpzero-test.fs
    ... "positive and negative zero are unequal if they have distinct encodings". ... The point is they don't display it. ... "floating point signed zero support", such that it can become a common term ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: fpzero-test.fs
    ... "positive and negative zero are unequal if they have distinct encodings". ... The point is they don't display it. ... BTW systems with IEEE hardware can readily toggle signed zero ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Rfd: floating point truncation V1
    ... floating point number towards zero, ... representation of the result: ... System supports floating point signed zero, and FINT returns signed zero, ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Bobby Fischers Conquest of Everest..
    ... attended Robin Wilson?s talk a few months ago about zero in mathematics ... more important and pivotal in all sorts of ways of thinking about the ... the void and the vacuum that we?re familiar with. ...
    (rec.games.chess.misc)