On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 03:06:43PM -0400, Alfie Costa wrote: > J. Tarrio said: > > When K=3.141592 (to set an example), "At least K" means effectively "4 > > or more", since 4 is the lowest natural number which equals or is > > greater than 3.141592. > > Well of course, but the text says "Q and K need not be integers and are > not rounded.", or in singular form that would be "K need not be an > integer and is not rounded." Whereas you just rounded it. 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. You keep assuming that K is the number of developers. *It* *is* *not*. Nothing has suggested that it is. > The correct meaning can be deduced, but it's awful prose. It is standard math. > BTW, can we all at least agree that "integer" is too general and can No. > safely be changed to > "natural" Defined as "non-negative integer". > or "whole number"? A synonym of "integer". How is "integer" too general? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature