Bug#210879: constitution.txt: fractured developers
A. Suffield says:
> No he didn't. He said that 4 > 3.141592. That is not "rounding". It is
> merely the case that the lowest natural number which equals or is
> greater than 3.141592 is 4. That does not change the value of K in any
> sense.
Good old 'gdict' says of the adjective 'round':
4. Full; complete; not broken; not fractional; approximately
in even units, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc.; -- said of
numbers.
Pliny put a round number near the truth, rather than
the fraction. --Arbuthnot.
Something is being rounded, and the resulting quantity enumerates
developers. But is 'K' the number of developers?
> You keep assuming that K is the number of developers.
The total number of developers? Not at all. I read in Section 4.2.2.7
that:
K <== minimum( 5 , sqrt(Total developers)/2 )
However, I think 'K' is used equivocaly at present. Its usage and
meaning should be made exact.
Consider the usage in Section 4.2.2.3:
"If the original decision was... then only K Developers need to sponsor
the resolution..."
In that sentence 'K' certainly indicates a number of developers, and
developers are whole numbers. But 'K' might not be a whole number.
A skit: Mr. Smith goes to the Debian Supermarket (their slogan: "where
prices are never rounded") to buy a cake advertised on sale for "Only
$4.50". Smith picks a cake off the shelf, and gives the guy at the
checkout $4.50. The checkout guy says "that'll be five dollars." Smith
shows the CG the ad, and the CG says, "we only give change in dollars".
Smith says "but prices are never rounded...". CG says "Yes, but we
only take dollars." Smith says, "well why not round down? Your ad says
'only' which means 'not more than', so it should be 4 dollars." CG says
"here at Debian 'only' means 'at least'. That'll be $5. Thanks for
shopping at Debian Sir."
> > The correct meaning can be deduced, but it's awful prose.
> It is standard math.
The constitution is in prose, and because prose is different from math,
its norms and standards are different. Sometimes very different.
> How is "integer" too general? [since it's a synonym for whole number]
Integer has more than one meaning, the most common meaning includes
negative numbers.
Firing up 'gdict' again:
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Integer In"te*ger, n. L. integer untouched, whole, entire.
See Entire.
A complete entity; a whole number, in contradistinction to a
fraction or a mixed number.
"WordNet (r) 2.0"
integer
n : any of the natural numbers (positive or negative) or zero
syn: whole number
"The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03)"
integer
<mathematics> (Or "whole number") One of the finite numbers
in the infinite set
..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...
Note that the Webster's that doesn't include negatives was the public
domain 1913 edition. The word's usage has changed. The present 3rd
Unabridged has its faults, but they made the correct choice for the
first definition of "integer": "any of the natural numbers, (as
1,2,3,4,5), the negatives of those numbers, or 0."
So for text circa 1913, the old original usage is OK, but in 2003, it's
too general.
Reply to: