A small puzzle

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

The way that I was taught "natural numbers" and "whole numbers" were differentiated by 0 being in one and not the other. Trying to reconfirm before posting led to some confusion. The way I recall:
[[[[[whole]natural]integers]rational]+[irrational]]=[real]
[imaginary]

There's never been a real consensus on the meaning of natural vs whole vs everything else -- it's far more explicit just to say strictly positive. What you write is certainly logical, but not quite established by consensus.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Do you perhaps refer to my lack of specifying strictly positive integers?

That depends upon whether you consider zero a positive integer? To avoid confusion perhaps saying integers greater than zero is enough.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by retina

That depends upon whether you consider zero a positive integer? To avoid confusion perhaps saying integers greater than zero is enough.

That is where "strictly" comes in, when you say "strictly positive". The mathematical definition is very clear.
Think like the difference between "bigger or equal" and "strictly bigger", for example.

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by retina

That depends upon whether you consider zero a positive integer? To avoid confusion perhaps saying integers greater than zero is enough.

Originally Posted by LaurV

That is where "strictly" comes in, when you say "strictly positive". The mathematical definition is very clear.
Think like the difference between "bigger or equal" and "strictly bigger", for example.

Indeed, strictly positive is a well defined term, unlike natural or whole numbers.

Another application of the word is "strict subsets".

[davar55]

Positive integer is unambiguous, since 0 is not positive or negative.

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by davar55

Positive integer is unambiguous, since 0 is not positive or negative.

Originally Posted by wikipedia/sign (mathematics)

Note that this definition is culturally determined. In France and Belgium, 0 is said to be both positive and negative. The positive resp. negative numbers without zero are said to be "strictly positive" resp. "strictly negative".

Although again, what you propose is logical, it is not entirely unambiguous. I made the least ambiguous statement possible. (Explicit is better than implicit!)

[davar55]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Although again, what you propose is logical, it is not entirely unambiguous. I made the least ambiguous statement possible. (Explicit is better than implicit!)

Dutch vs English? Zero is not positive nor is it negative.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by retina

That depends upon whether you consider zero a positive integer? To avoid confusion perhaps saying integers greater than zero is enough.

Anyone who considers zero a positive integer is strictly 'wrong'. This is a question of basic mathematical terminology, so let's recap, starting with the typical dictionary definition, specifically the mathematical-sense one of several meanings of the word:

positive, adj. - (of a quantity) greater than zero.

If you want >= 0 just say 'nonnegative'. For <= 0, 'nonpositive'. For sign of 0, 'indeterminate'.

Culture has nothing to do with it - prepending 'strictly' to 'positive' is strictly redundant.