documentation error

[bill]

From 3.2 in the Reference Manual "The Standard Type Hierarchy":

"Integers
These represent elements from the mathematical set of whole
numbers."

The generally recognized definition of a 'whole number' is zero and the
positive integers. That is to say, -1 is not a whole number. The
documentation ought to replace "whole numbers" with "integers".

 

[tiissa]

"Integers
These represent elements from the mathematical set of whole
numbers."

The generally recognized definition of a 'whole number' is zero and the
positive integers.

This term is ambiguous as it seems to be used for both natural numbers
and signed numbers [1].

That is to say, -1 is not a whole number. The
documentation ought to replace "whole numbers" with "integers".

Then you get a circular definition, arguably not very useful.
Why not simply precise 'signed whole numbers'?


However, it can be noted that the first instance of such types provides
the range -2147483648, 2147483647 which cannot be mistaken for natural
numbers.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_numbers

 

[Reinhold Birkenfeld]

"Integers
These represent elements from the mathematical set of whole
numbers."

The generally recognized definition of a 'whole number' is zero and the
positive integers.

This term is ambiguous as it seems to be used for both natural numbers
and signed numbers [1].

I cleared this up; now it reads "... set of whole numbers (positive and negative
ones)."

Reinhold

 

[Bryan Olson]

> tiissa wrote:
>

>>bill wrote:
>>

>>>>From 3.2 in the Reference Manual "The Standard Type Hierarchy":
>>>
>>>"Integers
>>> These represent elements from the mathematical set of whole
>>>numbers."
>>>
>>>The generally recognized definition of a 'whole number' is zero and the
>>>positive integers.

>>
>>This term is ambiguous as it seems to be used for both natural numbers
>>and signed numbers [1].

>
>
> I cleared this up; now it reads "... set of whole numbers (positive and negative
> ones)."

Consider deleting the sentence in which the Python doc tries to
define mathematical integers.

Integers

[In Python] There are three types of integers:

 

[Bengt Richter]

bill wrote:

From 3.2 in the Reference Manual "The Standard Type Hierarchy":

"Integers
These represent elements from the mathematical set of whole
numbers."

The generally recognized definition of a 'whole number' is zero and the
positive integers.

This term is ambiguous as it seems to be used for both natural numbers
and signed numbers [1].

I cleared this up; now it reads "... set of whole numbers (positive and negative
ones)."

Consider deleting the sentence in which the Python doc tries to
define mathematical integers.

Integers

[In Python] There are three types of integers:

This is a nice site:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WholeNumber.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/Integers.html

Regards,
Bengt Richter

 

[Bryan Olson]

> This is a nice site:
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WholeNumber.html
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/Integers.html

So maybe:

Integers

Pyton offers three types of
<A
HREF="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/Integers.html">integers</A>:


Or use the Wikipedia ref.

 

[Terry Hancock]

From 3.2 in the Reference Manual "The Standard Type Hierarchy":

"Integers
These represent elements from the mathematical set of whole
numbers."

The generally recognized definition of a 'whole number' is zero and the
positive integers.

This term is ambiguous as it seems to be used for both natural numbers
and signed numbers [1].

You realize, of course, that "natural numbers" don't include zero. ;-)

This is a pretty serious nitpick, isn't it? "Integers" is a well defined
mathematical concept, as well as a pretty well defined (but not coincident)
computer science concept. It's probably worth mentioning that Python uses
the *mathematical* definition of "integer" here -- or more precisely that
Python "long integers" do, while regular "integers" are what are known as
"long integers" in C.

Okay. I guess that *is* pretty confusing.

I think the manual is not so far off since "whole number" makes English
sense, if not mathematical. Certainly, if I were explaining this to my
kids I would say "whole" and not "integer" (I at least know they know what
"whole" means).

 

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

You realize, of course, that "natural numbers" don't include zero. ;-)

Tell that to the Ada language standard <G>

"natural" is 0..whatever, "positive" is 1..whatever.
--