Re: Get a life!

Ken Ward wrote:

"Dan Wood" <mr.wood.no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4348eee6$0$49795$ed2e19e4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Negative numbers are smaller than positive numbers"? 

How is this false?

If we have the set of real numbers, with one of them called 'zero' then the set is divided in to those reals which are greater than zero (positive), and those which are less (negative).

The negative ones are always less than the positive ones (by the well-ordered property) and so we can call them 'smaller' than the positive ones.

If you believe the claim to be false, please can you provide a counter-example? That is, can you find me a negative number from which I can subtract a positive number and end up with a non-negative result?

Thanks,
Dan G0VIK.

P.S. Before you reply, I am already aware that the magnitude (or modulus if you like) of negative numbers can be greater than that of positive ones, but I don't think that's what the OP meant...


I understand smaller to mean of less magnitude. If we ignore negative and positive values and substitute, left and right as positions relative to the norm. Then is 6 left smaller, larger or equal to 6 right? Also if you agree that 12 is the difference between them, then adding 6 left (or -) to 6 right (or+) cannot be equal to zero.

KW

But, then again I could be imprecise. 




You certainly could. All you have said is that IF WE IGNORE THE SIGN then
negative numbers are not of necessity smaller than positive ones.
I can't see any reason why you should assume arbitrarily that 'smaller'
means 'of lesser magnitude' and not just 'less than'. If Dan has £20,000
in his account and you have an overdraft of £20,001, would you say your
wealth was smaller or larger than his?


vy 73

Andy, M1EBV
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: in fact zero _is_ neither positive nor negative. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE
    ... So in fact zero can be negative and can be positive and it just ... which most then build the reals from. ... and agree that magnitude is much more fundamental ... and if you want to use the bourbaki "positive" (positif ?) to include ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The common usage of "nonnegative real number" is ludicrous.
    ... not necessarily zero, and that is usually what is meant by ... a complicated construction. ... When I want to talk about magnitude I am talking about ... reals contain zero or not is just convention. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: CRITICAL TORUS !!!
    ... each sign direction yields zero. ... where s is a sign and x is a magnitude. ... copies, plus one copy of the reals, when n is even. ... Should mathematics be open to new ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The common usage of "nonnegative real number" is ludicrous.
    ... In mathematics we readily admit that the term "nonnegative real ... The unsigned magnitude is fundamental, ... AND zero (which has no sign So nonnegative is a reference to the other ... reals contain zero or not is just convention. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Two worlds complementing each other
    ... > hide the problems behind formal approaches like reduction of the reals ... > integers is disturbed by the neutral zero. ... is there really any reason to define ... mathematics, based solely on the questionable foundation of your ...
    (sci.math)