[twanvl]

They are certainly better than Type I and Type II, but it is still a potentially ambiguous (at least as a non-native speaker). What makes a "false positive" false? Is it called a false positive because it is actually a negative, or is it called a false positive because it is a positive for which you made the error of calling it negative?

[setr]

That much is fine -- it's ambiguous if you don't know the general idea in the first place -- it's true of most things. The problem with type 1/2 is that it's so utterly devoid of memory hooks that even if you recognize it, and know the idea, you can't confidently identify which is which.

[thaumasiotes]

> or is it called a false positive because it is a positive for which you made the error of calling it negative?

Not to pick on the non-nativeness of the problem here, but that's not really a way you can use "false". I'd be a lot more comfortable calling an underlying positive that tested negative an "unidentified positive" or a "misdiagnosed positive" [this one really is ambiguous in exactly the way you suggest] or anything else that suggested that the positive was there and an error occurred in noticing it, as opposed to suggesting that the positive wasn't there in the first place.

So, it's a fair complaint for non-native speakers, but you just can't choose all your terminology to meet their needs. :/

[jdashg]

It's a false positive when the test comes back positive, but it was wrong. "Test falsely reported positive"

[naasking]

Substitute "incorrect" for "false", and it's all clear, ie. "incorrect positive result", and "incorrect negative result".