From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mandrill!gatech!psuvax1!vu-vlsi!hvrunix!wpohl
From: wpohl@hvrunix.UUCP (Walter E. Pohl)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Type NATURAL isn't
Summary: Natural is!
Message-ID: <430@hvrunix.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jun 88 20:05:43 GMT
References: <2937@fi.sei.cmu.edu> <920001@hpclldw.HP.COM>
Organization: Haverford College, Haverford, PA
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


	When I was in junior high or something, I was told that the Whole
numbers went from 0 to infinity, and the naturals from 1 to infinity.
	In contemporary math usage, this is WRONG WRONG WRONG.  In all the
math courses I've taken in college, and all the math books I've read (and I
mean college-level or above), the whole numbers are never mentioned, and the
naturals go from 0 to infinity.  Now, I'm sure there are exceptions, but I 
think that this is enough evidence to support the decision of the ADA developersto call this type natural

				Walt
				Wpohl@hvrunix