[seqfan] Re: A236019

[David Wilson]

In my experience, less/great generally refers to value while small/large
generally refers to size (magnitude).

Thus -12 is less than 3 (in value), but larger than 3 (in magnitude).
Note that when we talk about numbers near zero, we talk about "small
numbers" not "lesser numbers".
Likewise, a negative number of large magnitude is a "large negative number"
not a "great negative number".

Under this strict interpretation, the "least common multiple" of two numbers
would not exist in Z (only in Z+). In Z, "Smallest common multiple" would be
better, but still ambiguous with respect to sign.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SeqFan [mailto:seqfan-bounces at list.seqfan.eu] On Behalf Of Neil
> Sloane
> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 6:42 PM
> To: Sequence Fanatics Discussion list
> Subject: [seqfan] Re: A236019
> 
> The two terms are certainly not fungible.
> In this sentence  "Smallest number containing at least n partitions that
> contain at least n primes."
> it would sound horrible if smallest was changed to least or vice versa!
> Neil