On 4/27/05, Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:51:30AM -0700, Carl Lowenstein wrote:
> > On 4/27/05, Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 02:01:34PM +0700, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > Gabriel Sechan wrote:
> > > > > Not so wise, he missed the possible return value of 1. 0 is an
> > > > > integer,
> > > > > after all.
> > > >
> > > > I noticed that also...but then I remembered 0 is not positive (nor
> > > > negative).
> > > >
> > >
> > > I thought zero was defined as positive and even.
> >
> > Depends on whether you are a mathematician or a computer type.
> > There are computers in this world that have two kinds of zero,
> > positive and negative. It's a real mental challenge to cope with this
> > when you first experience it.
> >
> > carl
>
> Yes, I remember learning that from colleagues (school never taught it)
> and thinking "yet another IBM concept that can be tossed in the same
> trashcan as EBCDIC."
Not IBM. At least in those olden days, they used sign-magnitude arithmetic.
Control Data, among others used one's complement arithmetic. The
negative of 000000 is 111111.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
