Re: Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure NO
Vincent et al,
Please see my inserted comments.
Baker
On 3/22/2009 9:38 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2009-03-19 13:33:18 +0200, Evgenija D. Popova wrote:
I vote NO on motion 2.
I would vote "yes" if in the position paper P1788/PP008
lines 10+ to 12+ on page 2, saying:
"The levels framework, here proposed, does not give much help to
discussing modal or Kaucher intervals,
because these are more than "plain sets" (of numbers); but with minor
changes it supports discussing
Kahan-style wraparound intervals, which are plain sets."
and the sentence "It does not include Kaucher and modal intervals.",
lines 5-,6- on page 7.
are removed.
The motion text says:
The P1788 Working Group adopts the principles set out in
sections 1 and 2 of Position Paper PP008, "A proposed structure
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for the process of constructing the P1788 standard".
and the rationale says:
Note that this is a vote on principles, NOT on the detail in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
following section 3 and appendix. P1788 members may see various
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
defects of commission or omission in those, and are asked to
point them out, as a separate issue from this motion.
Evgenija, the sentence "It does not include Kaucher and modal
intervals." you're quoting is from Section 3. If I understand
correctly, this section is not part of the motion we are voting
on. Can anyone confirm?
I do not wish to put words into the motion proposer's mouth.
However, in one-to-one telephone and email conversations with him, my strong
understanding is that with this motion, he is seeking merely to
(a) lay out the format for the document (after all, he is a
technical editor, meaning he will actually be doing the
"wordsmithing,"
(b) have an initial motion that is relatively non-controversial,
to correct any possible problems we might have with the
voting and decision process itself. (Actually, this is
more or less how I have been viewing the first two motions.
I view motion three as the first one in which we make a substantial
decision.)
Elaborating, I view Motion 2 as dealing with the format of
the document, rather than the substance. The most controversial
part is perhaps the part on "levels," which were used to guide
754R's deliberations. Dan Zuras, chair of 754R, has been in
contact with the officers regarding this, and I feel it is
workable.
Regardless of our personal views, the intent of motion 2 is not to
provide guidance for or against Kaucher arithmetic or
modal arithmetic. If it passes, I will do my best to see it is
not cited in this regard. The modal arithmetic issue can be
decided more clearly by one or more explicit motions dealing
with modal arithmetic. Such motions are probably best put forward
when the modal arithmetic subgroup feels the time is right to do
so.
Also, I don't think that Sections 1 and 2 of PP008 reject Kaucher
and modal intervals, since they just propose a structure, but
don't really define anything.
Any comment?
See above.
(I'd like to have more information before voting. Indeed I don't think
Kaucher and modal intervals should be rejected before any discussion
about them.)
I hope my comments help.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------