Motion P1788/M003.01_Set_of_reals NO

[Dominique Lohez <dominique.lohez@xxxxxxx>]

I vote NO.

I agree with the choice of the set of reals as the basic set of numbers.
However the motion  should include

   1) A definition   of the intervals with infinite  bound(s) in terms 
of  intervals  with finite bounds.

   2) A method to evaluate the values of quantities such that  f( 
(-Inf, a] ) in terms of  appropriate sets of terms such as f ([b,c] )

   3) A method to  show that  the value of some expression  f([b,c]]) , 
where [b,c] is an interval with finite bounds, is an  interval with some 
infinite bound(s).


Rationales

      In favor of the motion

                        1) We try  modeling  real number  and not the 
extended real numbers

                        2) Moving from real number to extended real 
number would cause the loss of the ordered field structure .

       Against the motion
        
                         1) From  a mathematical point of view, since 
infinite is not a number such additions are required.

                          2) The motion clearly address the level  1  
of the paper structure previously voted. However to prevent
                            endless discussions when considering  
subsequent levels    a strict framework  for infinite handling must be 
defined as soon as possible.

  Sincerely,

Dominique LOHEZ

--
Dr Dominique LOHEZ
ISEN
41, Bd Vauban
F59046 LILLE
France

Phone : +33 (0)3 20 30 40 71
Email: Dominique.Lohez@xxxxxxx