Bug#210879: constitution.txt: fractured developers

[Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 02:47:45AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:21:46PM -0400, Alfie Costa wrote:
> > Integer has more than one meaning
> 
> Only if you're an idiot. Integer has precisely one meaning, and it is
> a synonym of "whole number". The set of integers is the union of the
> set of natural numbers and the set composed by subtracting every
> natural number from zero.

I always knew whole numbers as being zero or positive, and integers as
being whole numbers plus negative. The sets aren't identical in my book.
I don't think it's important enough to argue about normally, but ...
*shrug*

> > "WordNet (r) 2.0"
> > integer
> >      n : any of the natural numbers (positive or negative) or zero
> >          syn: whole number
> 
> That one's completely wrong. There are no negative naturals, and zero
> is natural.
> 
> Their definition of "natural number" is also wrong, because it fails
> to include zero (foldoc gets this right).

I only did one year of maths at Cambridge, but in the conventionally
agreed terminology there the set of natural numbers was definitely not
defined to include zero. Peano's first axiom is "1 is a natural number",
not "0 is a natural number".

I think you're confusing "different interpretation of disagreed
terminology" with "wrong". The membership of zero in the set of natural
numbers is a matter of disagreed terminology.

-- 
Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]