Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: n e` strettamente minore di 100

- Il problema richiede che n sia strettamente minore di 100
here is my attempt
- the problem requires n to be *** *** than 100
I still have two words to translate...


Kiuhnm

, Kiuhnm
wrote:

Hmmmmmmmmm.  Not the way I was taught mathematics (this is not about
human language, which is why we have symbols understood across the
nations.)
Less than means less than.
Less than or equal to means less than or equal to.
There are symbols to indicate both of these relationships. I am not
about to plumb around my Mac keyboard's possibilities to find them:
they might not come across anyway.
"Strictly less" was not part of the vocabulary when I learned
mathematics back, hmm, about the time of, hmmm....
-- 
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
 If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.

 mathematics back, hmm, about the time of, hmmm....
That's why we have encyclopedias...
Kiuhnm


Grazie del link. Sbaglio o "strettamente" è leggermente pleonastico?
Non basta dire "minore"?
Inoltre rischia di confondere: inizialmente avevo pensato a << , much
lesser.

 lesser.
In order theory, there are strict and non-strict orders. In analysis you 
may read about increasing and strictly increasing sequences. For instance,
   1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,...
is both an increasing and a decreasing sequence, because
   1<=1<=.......<=1
and
   1>=1>=.......>=1
Therefore it's not so strange that some authors write "strictly less" 
and "strictly greater".
Moreover, sometimes we don't care about strictness, so we say "a is less 
than b" even if we should say "a is less than or equal to b" 
(mathematicians are as lazy as anyone else). So, when strictness becomes 
suddenly important, we say that "a is strictly less than b".
Some authors even talk about "strictly positive numbers"! A strictly 
positive number is a number greater than zero, whereas a positive 
number... is a number greater than zero as well! :-)
Kiuhnm

number... is a number greater than zero as well! :-)
Nel linguaggio comune la "pigrizia" e l'"ambiguità" dei termini fanno
parte del gioco, ma il linguaggio matematico dovrebbe essere univoco.
Per come la vedo io, non è ammissibile usare "<" per intendere due
cose diverse nello stesso contesto di significati, a volte "lesser
than" e a volte "lesser than or equal to".

 than" e a volte "lesser than or equal to".
I think mathematicians are as precise as they feel they need to be.
Moreover, mathematicians specializes in different areas of mathematics. 
When you deal with some kinds of objects day after day, you start to 
become lazy because any of your colleagues know what you're talking about.
Kiuhnm

 When you deal with some kinds of objects day after day, you start to 
with the same kinds of objects


 become lazy because any of your colleagues know what you're talking about.
Hmm... So, if I write "x < 0", what am I talking about? :P


I have no idea. What is x?
If you write
   S = {x in R | x<0}
then S contains all and only the negative real numbers.
Note that 0 is not in S because x is STRICLY negative :-)))
Kiuhnm

 Note that 0 is not in S because x is STRICLY negative :-)))
I figure strictly negative numbers never ever think positive in their
life ;-)


Exacly... I mean... exactly!
My English is going to the dogs.
Kiuhnm

 "minore o uguale", AFAIK. 
Semplice, dire solo "minore di" pu� generare fraintendimenti, almeno in 
analisi. Per questo si usa scrivere:
? <-> "less than or equal to"
< <-> "strictly less"

 < <-> "strictly less"
Per curiosità, "si usa" dove? Da quando? Qual è la notazione usata nei
testi universitari di analisi matematica?

 You should ask on it.scienza.matematica
Done!
http://groups.google.com/group/it.scienza.matematica/browse_thread/thread/147f50cf900bd072


Well done. I'm curious.
Kiuhnm