(urth) Sigh

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Adam Thornton (IO) <adam at io.com> wrote:

>>> But, in fact, to an arbitrarily good approximation, *all* integers are
>>> bigger than that.
>>
>> Really? I would've said a bit less than half.
>
> I'm positive.
>
> Or rather, I should have specified positive integers.

Not necessary -- "big" can mean "of great magnitude," in which case
the large negative integers are "bigger than that" also.


-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes