Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?)

On 25/03/2025 20:04, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 25.03.2025 16:33, David Brown wrote:

On 25/03/2025 13:02, Tim Rentsch wrote:

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

>
Wouldn't the term 'whole numbers' be preferred in everyday English?

>
"Whole numbers" are all non-negative.
>
"Integers" include values less than zero.

>
"Everyday English" does not cover negative numbers at all - in "everyday
English", "integer" and "whole number" are basically synonymous and mean
1, 2, 3, etc.
>
But in standard mathematical usage, "whole numbers" are non-negative,
while "integers" include negative numbers.  (There is no solid agreement
about whether 0 is a "whole number" or not.)  [...]

 This all is interesting. - As a non-native English speaker that's not
obvious. - Where I live we have learned
 ℕ (called "natural numbers"): 1, 2, ...
 ℕ with an index 0 (positive/non-negative whole numbers): 0, 1, 2, ...
 ℤ (integer numbers, called "whole numbers"): ..., -1, 0, 1, 2, ...
 

Yes - with the proviso that some mathematicians include 0 with the set of natural numbers while some do not, and the term "whole numbers" is usually used in a looser sense when it is obvious whether 0 is included or not.  There is no "blackboard-W" symbol for the "set of whole numbers" - it's best to use explicit symbols like ℕ₀ or ℕ+ if it is not clear which "set of natural numbers" you mean.