Re: Our first formal motion
P1788 members
A.
Prof Kulisch wrote:
> I cite from the proposed StandardNotation:
> "A (real, closed, nonempty) interval is a 1-dimensional box, i.e., a pair x =
[xlo, xhi] consisting of two real numbers xlo and xhi with xlo <= xhi. The set of all
intervals is denoted by IR."
(JDP put in the xlo, xhi instead of the x with a under or over bar)
> In my understanding this definition excludes the empty set and intervals like (-oo, a] or [b, +oo) with a, b elements of R or (-oo, +oo) from IR.
Fair point. I suggest after "two real numbers" just add ", or $\pm\infty$,".
Arnold, how is that? Can you be the boss of changes to this document? - I don't have the .tex file.
B.
Bo Einarsson schrieb:
> On the first formal motion "Standardized notation in interval analysis"
>
> In section 3 regarding the intmacros.sty file it is stated that
> \a and \A etc. be used to denote interval quantities. ...
Someone already commented that TeX macros of one alphabetic letter, like \a, are risky and can conflict with other packages, etc.
Personally, I rarely use the standard meaning of \~ so I have redefined it to put its (single) argument in bold, so I use
\~{x} which can be shortened to \~x
to produce a boldface x. I would MUCH prefer intmacros.sty to do something like this, and abolish one-letter macros completely.
C.
HOWEVER please recall we are voting on a notation, not on a style file that implements it. The latter can be improved in slow time. Please ignore it for the vote.
John Pryce