PlanetMath (more info)
 Math for the people, by the people. Sponsor PlanetMath
Encyclopedia | Requests | Forums | Docs | Wiki | Random | RSS  
Login
create new user
name:
pass:
forget your password?
Main Menu
sections
Encyclopædia
Papers
Books
Expositions

meta
Requests (237)
Orphanage
Unclass'd
Unproven (550)
Corrections (54)
Classification

talkback
Polls
Forums
Feedback
Bug Reports

downloads
Snapshots
PM Book

information
News
Docs
Wiki
ChangeLog
TODO List
Copyright
About
[parent] Viewing Correction to 'strict'
positive vs. strictly positive by matte

Correction id: 5156
Filed on: 2004-10-22 02:58:05
Status: Accepted on 2004-10-22 03:47:58
Type: Meta/Minor

Correction text:

 In this entry one could mention that "positive" is
somewhat ambiguous (is 0 positive?) whereas this
ambiguity does not exist for "strictly positive".

No comment from object owner rspuzio.
Discussion
Style: Expand: Order:
forum policy
May 0 be positive? by pahio on 2004-10-22 14:29:11
In the entry "strict" it is brought out the idea that e.g. the words "greater" and "positive" are not always in mathematics sufficiently exact and unambiguous; it means that they sometimes should be strengthen with the qualifier "strictly". Is it true? I have never in 40 years seen in _non-French_ mathematical literature any such practice (this concerns such great languages as English, German, Russian, Chinese, and smaller languages as Swedish, Finnish, Estonian). For me and most others, "positive" is with no doubt "> 0".
 If "positive" is not sufficiently good, then many PM entries should be corrected by adding qualifiers "strictly" (e.g. "If \epsilon is any strictly positive number ...").
 BTW, also in the French Wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positif), "positive" is ">0"!
[ reply | up ]
Interact
new correction | post message