- #1

- 277

- 0

- Thread starter G037H3
- Start date

- #1

- 277

- 0

- #2

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

[tex]\def\ZZ{\mathbb{Z}} \ZZ^+ \, \ZZ^> \, \ZZ^{\geq} \, \ZZ^- \, \ZZ^{\leq}[/tex]

to specify various subsets of the integers (the positive elements, the elements greater than 0, the elements greater-than-or-equal-to zero, et cetera).- #3

- 277

- 0

Ugh, it would seem logical that it would have a name independent of denoting a particular part of Z.

- #4

CRGreathouse

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,820

- 0

Yeah, it really doesn't have one. Frankly it's more common to pull an element n from N and write -n, rather than pull an element m from [tex]\mathbb{Z}^{<}[/tex] and write m.Ugh, it would seem logical that it would have a name independent of denoting a particular part of Z.

- #5

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 956

Ugh, it would seem logical that it would have a name independent of denoting a particular part of Z.

- #6

- 277

- 0

Because the negative integers are not the non-negative integers?Whywould that seem logical? What do you perceive as thereasonfor "naming" sets of numbers?

- #7

- 1,101

- 3

- #8

- 277

- 0

There is no strong convention, but Euler considers 0 to be part of the set of natural numbers; I'll go with him on it ;)

- Replies
- 17

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 868

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 592

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 710

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 708