Positive random number

[deepak]

Hi,

Can someone give the standard function which can create positive
integer value in C?

Thanks,
Deepak

[Johannes Bauer]

Keith Thompson schrieb:

Jack Klein <ja*******@spam cop.netwrites:

>On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:43:10 -0800 (PST), deepak
<de*********@g mail.comwrote in comp.lang.c:

>>Can someone give the standard function which can create positive
integer value in C?

Other's have talked about "rand()", but I don't see anything in your
post that requires it.

[...]

The subject was "Positive random number". That information should
have been in the body of the original post.

http://xkcd.org/221/

:-))

Greetings,
Johannes

--
"Viele der Theorien der Mathematiker sind falsch und klar
Gotteslästerli ch. Ich vermute, dass diese falschen Theorien genau
deshalb so geliebt werden." -- Prophet und Visionär Hans Joss aka
HJP in de.sci.mathemat ik <47************ **********@news .sunrise.ch>

[pete]

Johannes Bauer wrote:

>
Keith Thompson schrieb:

Jack Klein <ja*******@spam cop.netwrites:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:43:10 -0800 (PST), deepak
<de*********@gm ail.comwrote in comp.lang.c:
Can someone give the standard function which can create positive
integer value in C?
Other's have talked about "rand()",
but I don't see anything in your
post that requires it.

[...]

The subject was "Positive random number". That information should
have been in the body of the original post.

Th return value of rand isn't guaranteed to be positive.

--
pete

[Richard Heathfield]

pete said:

Johannes Bauer wrote:

>>
Keith Thompson schrieb:

Jack Klein <ja*******@spam cop.netwrites:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:43:10 -0800 (PST), deepak
<de*********@g mail.comwrote in comp.lang.c:
Can someone give the standard function which can create positive
integer value in C?
Other's have talked about "rand()",
but I don't see anything in your
post that requires it.
[...]

The subject was "Positive random number". That information should
have been in the body of the original post.

Th return value of rand isn't guaranteed to be positive.

Nor is it guaranteed to be random.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Spoon]

pete wrote:

The return value of rand isn't guaranteed to be positive.

What does "positive" mean? Is x positive if and only if x 0?
Does that mean that 0 is neither positive nor negative?

For the record, the rand function computes a sequence of
pseudo-random integers in the range 0 to RAND_MAX.

[James Kuyper]

Spoon wrote:

pete wrote:

>The return value of rand isn't guaranteed to be positive.

What does "positive" mean? Is x positive if and only if x 0?
Does that mean that 0 is neither positive nor negative?

Correct.

[Richard Heathfield]

Spoon said:

pete wrote:

>The return value of rand isn't guaranteed to be positive.

What does "positive" mean?

Greater than zero.

Is x positive if and only if x 0?

Yes.

Does that mean that 0 is neither positive nor negative?

Yes.

For the record, the rand function computes a sequence of
pseudo-random integers in the range 0 to RAND_MAX.

Yes.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Johannes Bauer]

Richard Heathfield schrieb:

>>The return value of rand isn't guaranteed to be positive.

What does "positive" mean?

Greater than zero.

>Is x positive if and only if x 0?

Yes.

>Does that mean that 0 is neither positive nor negative?

Yes.

The question if 0 is positive or not is one which has long been debated
my mathematicians around the world - and still is. Many are of the
opinion that it is useful to define it as positive, just as it is useful
to define 0^0 = 1 (although this is not as clear as it might seem).

The point is: It's a question a definition. Your answer is much too
dogmatic.

Greetings,
Johannes

--
"Viele der Theorien der Mathematiker sind falsch und klar
Gotteslästerli ch. Ich vermute, dass diese falschen Theorien genau
deshalb so geliebt werden." -- Prophet und Visionär Hans Joss aka
HJP in de.sci.mathemat ik <47************ **********@news .sunrise.ch>

[James Kuyper]

Johannes Bauer wrote:

Richard Heathfield schrieb:

>>>The return value of rand isn't guaranteed to be positive.
What does "positive" mean?

Greater than zero.

>>Is x positive if and only if x 0?

Yes.

>>Does that mean that 0 is neither positive nor negative?

Yes.

The question if 0 is positive or not is one which has long been debated
my mathematicians around the world - and still is. Many are of the
opinion that it is useful to define it as positive, just as it is useful
to define 0^0 = 1 (although this is not as clear as it might seem).

The point is: It's a question a definition. Your answer is much too
dogmatic.

There might be obscure discussions among mathematicians in which such a
definition is used, but I believe that in almost all contexts, the
overwhelming majority of the mathematically literate population consider
0 to be neither positive nor negative. I don't think it's excessively
dogmatic to insist on interpreting it that way in this context.

[Johannes Bauer]

James Kuyper schrieb:

>The point is: It's a question a definition. Your answer is much too
dogmatic.

There might be obscure discussions among mathematicians in which such a
definition is used, but I believe that in almost all contexts, the
overwhelming majority of the mathematically literate population consider
0 to be neither positive nor negative. I don't think it's excessively
dogmatic to insist on interpreting it that way in this context.

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".

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" :-)

Greetings,
Johannes

--
"Viele der Theorien der Mathematiker sind falsch und klar
Gotteslästerli ch. Ich vermute, dass diese falschen Theorien genau
deshalb so geliebt werden." -- Prophet und Visionär Hans Joss aka
HJP in de.sci.mathemat ik <47************ **********@news .sunrise.ch>

[Golden California Girls]

pete wrote:

Johannes Bauer wrote:

>Keith Thompson schrieb:

>>Jack Klein <ja*******@spam cop.netwrites:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:43:10 -0800 (PST), deepak
<de********* @gmail.comwrote in comp.lang.c:
Can someone give the standard function which can create positive
integer value in C?
Other's have talked about "rand()",
but I don't see anything in your
post that requires it.
[...]

The subject was "Positive random number". That information should
have been in the body of the original post.

Th return value of rand isn't guaranteed to be positive.

The rand() function computes a sequence of pseudo-random integers in the
range of 0 to RAND_MAX (as defined by the header file <stdlib.h>).