|
The largest negative integer is the negative integer that is greater than all other negative integers. hence -1.
Hopefully this isn't devolving into a political conversation.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: The largest negative integer is the negative integer that is greater than all other negative integers.
I thought the same thing.
Also, isn't it interesting that on the other side of 0 that no one had a problem distinguishing the smallest positive integer : which is 1. Aren't all numbers greater than others when the are further to the right of other numbers?
Also, do these people not believe that following are true?
-5000 < -1
-1 > -5000
Then why don't they know that the largest negative integer is -1?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check this out. It's JavaScript but...
Number.MIN_VALUE < -1
Number.NEGATIVE_INFINITY > -1
-1 > Number.NEGATIVE_INFINITY
So the largest negative integer is -1. 
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's a bad mistake to assume that a computer implementation of a mathematical concept provides a correct definition, especially at the limits.
But I agree that mathematically -1 is larger than -2. It's the distance from the extreme left of the number line (-infinity) that illustrates this.
And zero is neutral, neither positive nor negative.
And we're relying on ChatGPT for truth now? Lord help us!
|
|
|
|
|
haughtonomous wrote: a bad mistake to assume that a computer implementation of a mathematical concept provides a correct definition,
Oh, wow, there's a lot packed into that, because it would be odd if computer languages were also wrong about mathematical concepts, wouldn't it? Logic would be wrong and all kinds of things.
Of course, I do understand that a language only models mathematical concepts.
But it would be a huge exposure if programming languages didn't define mathematical concepts properly, i think.
haughtonomous wrote: And zero is neutral, neither positive nor negative.
I agree 100% on that.
haughtonomous wrote: And we're relying on ChatGPT for truth now?
No, I'm not depending on it. I am curious about what chatGPT thinks tho, because, in my experience, it hallucinates (lies) often.
|
|
|
|
|
haughtonomous wrote: bad mistake to assume that a computer implementation of a mathematical concept provides a correct definition,
A definition is just that. One can accept it or reject it. That is exactly how mathematics and even logic works.
Other than that it certainly not possible to prove a definition in any way.
Myself I would accept an authoritative source but what is that source exactly? (I have been looking for such a source related to this thread.)
haughtonomous wrote: And we're relying on ChatGPT for truth now?
People assume a vast array of definitions, assumptions and proofs every day. They certainly do not prove them. Someone that attempted that would probably need to be locked up. (Lets prove F=ma every day by standing in front of a moving car.)
So what source should one use? What source are you relying on for Number Theory (which is what this falls into.)
As an example myself I would really like to also find an authoritative source that shows that the world is a sphere. Certainly seem people claim it, then cite various ways to prove it (without themselves actually proving it.) I have also read articles that demonstrate that certain attempts to prove it are flat are just wrong. Which of course does not prove it is a sphere either.
So I am left with just assuming that it is a sphere.
|
|
|
|
|
I think technically the earth is closer to a geoid.
All kinds of models/templates for mapping, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
I still remember one geometry lesson about the Greeks measuring shadows at high noon in two cities at different latitudes on the same day and using that to calculate the radius of the earth.
Similar to the trick of using your own shadow to measure the height of a tree base on the tree’s shadow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zero is definitely not negative. And it's not imaginary either.
If it's neither positive nor negative, then it must also be neither imaginary nor real.
If we accept zero as a real, then we must conclude that zero is positive.
|
|
|
|
|
10.
Or, possibly, 42.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
It's always 42; we just didn't invent the math yet to get us there.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
We did: fractional bases[^] - but it makes my head hurt trying to think of them ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
at what bit depth? 
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Start with two bit signed numbers and work your way up from there ...
That always made me laugh - back in the day when CD players were the Bee's Knees they proudly announced the kit contained a "1 bit DA converter" on the adverts (and the player, normally).
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: when CD players were the Bee's Knees
Ooohhh... and 4X oversampling?
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: they proudly announced the kit contained a "1 bit DA converter"
Which was entirely correct. Sigma/Delta DA (and AD) converters are indeed 1-bit converters that use crazy oversampling plus noise-shaping to produce an analog output that has the same resolution as a 16 or 24 bit "classical" converter  . The introduction of sigma/delta converters removed a whole class of non-linearity issues with classical converters.
|
|
|
|
|
The question is ambiguous in terms of what "largest negative" means. In a strict mathematical sense, that number is -1. But in an natural language sense, "largest negative" would mean "most negative". For example, when my bank account hits $-500, I owe a larger amount than when its only $-10!
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you owe a larger amount - which means you have a lower bank balance!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
k5054 wrote: question is ambiguous in terms
I agree.
It needs better term definitions to provide a correct answer.
But I can see that some of the answers above taking it to mean the question is phrased to taken as a trick question and so rather simple.
|
|
|
|
|
I think for a programming forum the question is appropriately precise/clearly worded 
Shame on me, my brain also focused on -Infinity for the largest negative number  
|
|
|
|
|
What you OWE is a positive amount. What your bank account is is a negative amount.
On the other hand, I keep getting a "bill" from a company for -$.01. I have called and talked to them multiple times, and they keep sending me the bill. Just send me the penny. It would be much cheaper.
Brent Hoskisson
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
k5054 wrote: The question is ambiguous in terms
I agree. It lacks rigor. It ought to use the correct mathematical term -- "GREATER THAN".
|
|
|
|
|
This is why I hated math word problems. To me, the "largest negative integer" is -infinity because, for example, -3 is "larger" than -2 on the "negative" scale. "Largeness" to me is ambiguous. But my brain works in weird ways when it comes to converting words into math expressions.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
