Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure PASS
Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure passes
Yes - 48; No - 5; registered voters - 63
===Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure===
Proposer: John Pryce
Seconder: George Corliss
===Motion text===
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".
George Corliss,
Vote Tabulator
For the record, the "No, but I would vote Yes if ..." messages follow:
Subject: Re: P1788: Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure open for VOTE
Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009 7:46 AM
From: R. Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Conversation: P1788: Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure open for VOTE
I'll second the first amendment proposed by Dominique Lohez (included
below).
Reason:
The current motion I think is good, but it also makes a false assumption
about the modal intervals. For example, it says that the proposed level
structure is sufficient to consider Kahan intervals but not Kaucher (modal)
intervals. This is
not correct, so it sets a precedent that I don't believe is accurate.
The real question going forward is not about if the level structure supports
the modal intervals (it does), but are modal intervals going to be supported
as a datatype in the standard or not, etc. In this sense, they deserve at
least the
same consideration as Kahan intervals and mid-rad intervals, etc.
So I would vote "NO" as it currently stands.
However, I would vote "YES" if these statements were removed or corrected,
e.g., if the following amendment proposed by Dominique Lohez was made:
-------------------------------------------
I suggest that keeping the same general structure with the following
addition
A level 1' is added
This level should become the interface to conceptors of
agorithms instead of level 1 since it describe the different views of
level 1
including
*The Vienna proposal intervals
*The Kaucher's interval and the modal intervals
*The Kahan's intervals
*May be The midpoint radius model
From this point of view the objets of level 1' are deduced from
object of level 1 fy focusing the attention on some specific features
Conversely objet of level 1 are deduced from the objets of level 1 by
some integration of features
The extra level is not numbered 0 since objects of level 1 are are
derived from the objects of the extra level.
On the other hand objects of levels 2 and following are derived from
objects of level 1 and not from level 1'
IMHO, it should not to an overloaded and the unsable standard.
In contrast it might make the thing more simple, due to a deeper
understanding of interval arithmetic
--------------------------------------------------
Sincerely,
Nate Hayes
Sunfish Studio, LLC
Subject: Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure NO
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009 6:33 AM
From: Evgenija D. Popova <epopova@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <epopova@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Conversation: Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure NO
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.
Rationale:
------------------------------------
1) the claim at lines 10+ to 12+ on page 2 is just not true.
The lever framework, proposed in P1788/PP008, is fully compatible
with the end-point representation of Kaucher intervals which present
an algebraic completion of the set-theoretic intervals and
are considered as a canonical form of modal intervals.
2) The text marked for removal contradicts to
point 1c. from "3.1 Level 1 debates" of the position paper, which
supposes Level 1 debates on support for
other /Kaucher, modal/ interval models.
1c. from 3.1 says: "There are various ways in which the support of
non-classical intervals could be done. The implementation of such a
support may be not prescriptive but permissive."
The position paper suggests debates on this topic also at Level 4
debates (4c.) and at the Meta-level debates (M-c).
3) Taking the Vienna proposal as a background of the eventual
interval standard, and because this proposal supports non-standard
intervals, implies that at some time a discussion on
non-standard intervals should take place.
The most reasonable interval model which might be relatively easy
built on the non-standard intervals is Kaucher (modal) arithmetic.
----------------------------------
Evgenija Popova
Institute of Mathematics and Informatics
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Subject: Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure NO
Date: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:21 AM
From: G. William (Bill) Walster <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Conversation: Motion P1788/M0002.01_ProcessStructure NO
I vote NO on motion 2.
Rationale:
In an interval standard, the opportunity exists to leave open how
intervals are represented, thereby requiring *only* that the
mathematical interpretation of any representation must not violate the
containment constraint of interval arithmetic. This in turn forces the
standard to answer only the more fundamental question: For a given set
of (bounded, or unbounded) intervals, what is the set of values is that
must be contained in the interval result of any interval computation?
To do anything more than this risks stifling innovations that might
result in ways to automate (in hardware or software) fast ways to
compute narrow width interval bounds.
Modal intervals are just one of many possible innovations.