Re: Absolute value of signed 32-bit random integer
Peter Duniho wrote:
Lew wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:
The statement I made that you take issue with has nothing to do with
Java, except inasmuch as Java claims to be producing an "absolute
value" with this method.
Really, Java is not making that claim.
Really, it is making that claim.
Really, it is not. You cannot leave out part of their description and
excoriate them for what's left. That's intellectual dishonesty.
Peter Duniho wrote:
Since the method is described as producing an "absolute value", and
That is not accurate.
Yes, it is accurate.
No, it is not. It is an incomplete citation and leaves out the part that
invalidates what you say. That is dishonest.
It only partly claims that it "[r]eturns the absolute value of an int
value",
You left out the period. A very important typographical inclusion, it
means that the initial statement is intended as a standalone summary of
the method.
What a ridiculous assertion. It is not intended as a "stanalone summary" as
it appears in the same Javadocs with the part you want to leave out.
Such dishonesty.
but goes on to state "that if the argument is equal to the value of
Integer.MIN_VALUE, the most negative representable int value, the
result is that same value, which is negative".
<http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/Math.html#abs(int)>
You're right. The documentation contradicts itself. So?
It does not contradict itself. It says that there is one exceptional case,
thus it completes itself.
[...]
What you actually wrote, and I quoted here, is that
the method is described as producing an "absolute value"
but that's only part of the claim for 'Math#abs(int)'. You left out
the other part. IOW, you are basing your argument on an incomplete
description of what is claimed. To be fair, you should base your
argument on the entirety of what is claimed for that method.
Frankly, and this should have been clear from the outset to anyone
reading what I wrote, my complaint is that the behavior a method
expected to produce an absolute value does not in fact produce a true
absolute value.
If you expect it to produce what you call a "true" absolute value, then you
are not basing your expectations on the documentation, therefore it's your fault.
Everyone else expects the method to perform as documented.
The documentation really isn't relevant at all for judging that
Oh, come on!
The documentation isn't relevant?
That's it. Everything you say is trash if you claim the documentation isn't
relevant. There's no reason to respond any more to such dishonesty and
trollishness.
--
Lew