RE: Moore's new book on interval analysis
Baker Kearfott wrote:
>
> Regarding our motion on notation, I note that the scope of
> the motion does not include standardizing notation.
> Its scope is only to agree upon what notation we will be
> using in the standards document.
>
I think this statement is critically important, and has perhaps not been clear
enough in some of the ongoing discussions. Since intervals are standard
mathematical objects with various long pre-existing notations, many of them
widely accepted, it would be unwise to attempt to re-define these and
formulate standards that then necessarily a wider community would be urged to
adhere to.
This is particularly so since the end result of an application of interval
methods to a given mathematical problem is usually to assert with certainty a
purely *mathematical* statement; i.e. zero is outside the bound interval of
the range of the function, or Earth is not (or is?) contained in the intervals
enclosing the positions of the asteroid, etc etc.
Martin