Positive random number

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

There is no greater entity which is called Mexico, so calling
Mexico Mexico is unambiguous. There _is_ a greater entity called
America, whose existence as well as whose naming far predates
the USA, and which therefore has the right of precedence to the
name America both by age and by pre-eminence.

The USA will just have to get used to being part of a greater
world. I know, it's hard for USAliens to imagine that something
greater than their impossibly perfect country can exist, but hey,
I don't get to decide on facts of history or geography, and
neither do they.

You haven't yet faced the fundamental fact that you are _all_
figments of my vivid imagination, and that the only reality is my
mind. Obstreperous figments!

 

[CBFalconer]

Richard Bos wrote:
...

Actually, no it doesn't. The USA is large enough and powerful
enough to get away with considering itself as separate from the
rest of the world, and that is precisely how most USA citizens
feel about it. I'm not advocating this, just pointing it out.

Your point is somewhat nebulous. The US is unable to handle a
minority group in a minority set of Islamic countries. It is
considerably smaller, and/or less populous and/or less well
educated than many other countries, such as Russia, Canada, China,
India, Brazil (Brazil may not be accurate) just to name a few.

I suspect the US would be well advised to study the evolution of
British structure since 1945. That would minimize language
difficulties during the study.

 

[jameskuyper]

Your point is somewhat nebulous. The US is unable to handle a
minority group in a minority set of Islamic countries. It is
considerably smaller, and/or less populous and/or less well
educated than many other countries, such as Russia, Canada, China,
India, Brazil (Brazil may not be accurate) just to name a few.

I didn't say it was large or powerful enough to conquer or control any
significant portion of the rest of the world. I only said that it was
large and powerful enough to get away with a superiority complex. As
far as "less educated" is concerned, that makes holding on to a
superiority complex easier, not harder.

 

[Malcolm McLean]

There is an appreciable portion of USAnians who consider that a
passport is needed to visit New Mexico. I am pleased to hear that
all Europeans are well educated and completely knowledgeable. That
should avoid many arguments.

The US has stupid rich people. That's something you just don't find in
Europe.

Probably a reflection on the strength of the US economy. A stupid European
rapidly becomes poor, whilst in America it is a bit easier to hang onto your
money.

 

[santosh]

The US has stupid rich people. That's something you just don't find in
Europe.

Probably a reflection on the strength of the US economy. A stupid
European rapidly becomes poor, whilst in America it is a bit easier to
hang onto your money.

Not stupid, just uninformed.

 

[Joe Wright]

Johannes Bauer wrote:
[ snip ]

I have met *dozens* of such people while spending one year abroad. And,
do not misunderstand me here please, I do not at all think all US
Americans are stupid. I think all of them, who think that Mexico doesn't
belong to the continent America are stupid. And, as I said: I've met
plenty of those.

Greetings,
Johannes

I'll probably regret this but..

America is not a continent. The two continents over here are North
America and South America.

In 1776 we declared "The United States of America" independent of the
British Crown. The Brits didn't like this very much and fought us to
their defeat in 1781 at Yorktown and finally 1815 at New Orleans.

Citizens of the "United States of America" began referring to themselves
as "American" at about this time. Canada was there and those people
called themselves "Canadian". Mexico had been around for some time and
they described themselves "Mexican".

Everybody knew then and knows now who the "Americans" are.

Pinheads suggesting that Peruvians are Americans too are not nearly as
smart as they think they are.

 

[James Kuyper]

Joe Wright wrote:
....

Pinheads suggesting that Peruvians are Americans too are not nearly as
smart as they think they are.

Keep in mind that you've just described the opinion held by a large
fraction, probably a majority, of the inhabitants of not only Peru, but
also the rest of Latin America. Take a look, in particular, at the
Spanish language entry for USA in Wikipedia:

<http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estados_Unidos>

The section titled Nombre describes the typical attitude in the Spanish
speaking world on this issue. Using Google's translation tools, that
section says:

"It is commonly said in abbreviated form United States. In Spanish, is
not acceptable use of the United States as an abbreviated form of the
name of this country, because there are other nations that share the
American subcontinent. Similarly, America must not be used to refer
exclusively to the United States, even if it is a custom widespread use
of English among the name of the continent as a shortened form of the
name of the nation. When writing, is commonly used abbreviation EE. UU.
(Mandatory space and intermediate points for being an abbreviation, not
an acronym), and to a lesser extent, the acronym USA. In Spanish is
incorrect, though frequent, the use of English acronym USA."

Most of the world (or at least the part that bothers to think about
this) thinks it's pretty arrogant of us to appropriate a name that
describes two continents, and insist that it be used exclusively to
describe us.

 

[santosh]

James Kuyper wrote:

Most of the world (or at least the part that bothers to think about
this) thinks it's pretty arrogant of us to appropriate a name that
describes two continents, and insist that it be used exclusively to
describe us.

Ironically one group that *does* call the USA as "America" is it's main
current enemy.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

I'll probably regret this but..

America is not a continent. The two continents over here are North
America and South America.

Connected by a peculiar strip called 'Central America'.

In 1776 we declared "The United States of America" independent of the
British Crown. The Brits didn't like this very much and fought us to
their defeat in 1781 at Yorktown and finally 1815 at New Orleans.

Citizens of the "United States of America" began referring to
themselves as "American" at about this time. Canada was there and
those people called themselves "Canadian". Mexico had been around for
some time and they described themselves "Mexican".

Everybody knew then and knows now who the "Americans" are.

Pinheads suggesting that Peruvians are Americans too are not nearly
as smart as they think they are.

True enough, but not nearly as much fun as poking at people
committing any form of usage. Now discuss the 'USAnian' usage.


BTW, I suspect that most Peruvians, Mexicans, and Canadians, are
actually content to be labeled as Peruvian, Mexican, or Canadian
(as required).

 

[gusanner]

Why not make it logic and balanced for everyone -> www.usanian.com.
History is history, - change doesn't hurt.

Reason

 

[CBFalconer]

Why not make it logic and balanced for everyone -> www.usanian.com.
History is history, - change doesn't hurt.

Completely meaningless without quotes. See my sig. below.

--
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, ensure
you quote enough for the article to make sense. Google is only
an interface to Usenet; it's not Usenet itself. Don't assume
your readers can, or ever will, see any previous articles.
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

 

[Army1987]

They are not obscure. Consider the work of Peano
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Peano) which in his older works
state that the positive Integers start at 1, while at a later release
(Peano.G.: Formulaire de mathématiques 5 Bde. Turin, Bocca 1895-1908) he
states they start at zero.

It is *not* something that "almost all mathematicians" agree about, it
is primarily a question of usefulness. Both variants are common, it even
depends which university you're attending. Dogmatism are stupid, there
are good reasons why zero should be considered a positive integer and
there are also good reasons why it shouldn't. It's important to base
your decision on reason, not on "that's what I think everybody is doing".

I've never heard anybody call 0 a positive number, anywhere (other than in
signed zeroes, but I'm talking about math, not computing).
x is positive if x > 0, nonnegative if x >= 0, negative if x < 0 and
nonpositive if x <= 0.
The thing about which mathematicians actually disagree is whether "natural
number" means "positive integer" or "negative integer".

Then again - in a trueley mathematic sense - almost all mathematicians
consider zero to be nonpositive. Almost all of them agree that zero is a
positive number, too. This is because "almost" in a mathematic sense
means "except for a finite number of exceptions"

That definition only applies if the set of all mathematicians is infinite.