[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: #\a octothorpe syntax vs SRFI 10

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 58 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 58 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
>> Another possibility is to use the word "natural" for nonnegative
>> integers:
>> exact           64.bit natural-number           #nA:natural-64
>> exact           32.bit natural-number           #nA:natural-32
>> exact           16.bit natural-number           #nA:natural-16
>> exact           8.bit natural-number            #nA:natural-8

bear wrote:
> Nix.  Not what mathematicians mean by "natural numbers." Guaranteed to
> cause confusion when someone presumes that he can't store zero, or is
> allowed to divide by something because it can't be zero, etc.

I suspect that you have natural numbers and whole numbers confused. The
natural numbers are the non-negative integers, and the whole numbers are
the positive integers.

> "Nonnegative" is the word that means what you want in mathematics,

"Non-negative integer" and "natural number" are synonymous.
Bradd W. Szonye