Re: Motion M008.01: yes
> On Apr 10, 2017, at 11:46, Michel Hack <mhack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I vote YES on the whole document P1788_1_MAIN.pdf of 2017-03-10.
> I noticed the same editorial points mentioned by others. Here are a
> few more, which I don't think we discussed:
> P 7 line 10: name the set of integers, i.e. add "|Z”
I did include Z on p 7 and line 10.
> P 20 line 34, in definition of a rational literal p/q:
> would "strictly positive integer" not be better than "positive-natural”?
I replaced "positive-natural” by "strictly positive integer”.
Hope this is OK.
> I did not see a definition of |N -- and it is a cultural choice as
> to whether N starts at 0 or 1. Similarly, "positive" sometimes
> includes zero, but "strictly positive" is unambiguous.
> Alternatively, define "natural-number" as "strictly positive integer"
> in the glossary, as the term is in fact used several times.
> ---Sent: 2017-04-10 16:19:15 UTC