- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 19:06:17 +0000
- To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 7 Nov 2008, at 18:55, Boris Motik wrote: > Hello, > > Strictly speaking, this wasn’t a typo because -0 is equal +0. I can > see, however, that this can confuse people, so I’ve therefore > changed the document as you’ve suggested. > > Thanks for this comment! Actually, I think this is a bit misleading and may even change the meaning. +0 is a real, thus covered by the first clause (we should switch these to an ordered list). -0 is *not* a real (though it is equal to a real), so, just like -INF and +INF needs an additional clause. (At the moment, I don't see a hook up between = and <. As far as I can tell, it's possible for -0 = +0 *and* -0 < +0. Indeed, if you change the definition to +0, then I would say that -0 is not < than any other element in realPlus and vice versa.) For example, with this change, I believe your example no longer holds. I.e., from that definition -1 and 1 only have +0 between them. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 19:03:25 UTC