Motion P1788/M0004.01_Keep_to_754 NO
I vote NO.
Implementations of interval arithmetic which conform to IEEE 754 already
exist and are well-studied. This is true even for Kaucher intervals. See,
e.g.,
E. Popova, "Extended Interval Arithmetic in IEEE Floating-Point
Environment," Interval Comp., 4, 1994, pp. 100-129.
E. Popova, "Interval Operations Involving NaNs," Reliable Computing 2.2,
1996, pp. 161-165.
E. Popova & C. Ullrich, "Generalizing BIAS Specification," ACM Press,
1998, pp. 207-214.
The goal of these models is to be 754-compliant. So they bring the
exceptional conditions of IEEE 754 into the interval arithmetic. I believe
classical and modal interval arithmetic can be implemented in floating-point
as an exception-free system (allowing for division by interval containing
zero, which is still undefined). However, this will likely require
deviations from IEEE 754.
If mid-rad intervals are to be considered, it will be significant advantage
to define new bit-patterns for them. This is because radius requires much
fewer bits of precision than midpoint, and also there are no unbounded
endpoints.
I would vote "YES" for a motion to adopt the electrical engineering terms
and concepts of IEEE 754 in our discussions. This includes denormalized
numbers, NaNs, binary fraction, exponent, rounding modes, etc. However, any
motion to encourage "compliance" or "independence" from IEEE 754 is, in my
view, putting the cart before the horse. So I don't see the current motion
(or Arnold's alternative) is necessary or useful.
Svetoslav provides a more accurate summary when he says:
"The idea of interval computations is revolutionary in scientific computing,
it already had an impact on the FP-standard and it should be expected to
have further impact."
Sincerely,
Nate Hayes
Sunfish Studio, LLC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Baker Kearfott" <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "stds-1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:01 AM
Subject: Correction re: Motion P1788/M0004.01_Keep_to_754 open for VOTE
> P1788 members,
>
> Please find the small correction. When you vote on this,
> the subject of the email you send should be
>
> Motion P1788/M0004.01_Keep_to_754 YES (or NO)
>
> and not
>
> Motion P1788/M003.01_Set_of_reals YES (or NO)
>
> Thank you, Guenther Mayer, for observing the correction.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Baker
>
>
>
==========================================================
> P1788 members:
>
> The formal discussion period for this motion has ended, and the
> formal voting period has begun. Votes may be cast until the
> end of Monday, June 2. The motion is listed below. Please
> note that the wording has changed from its original wording,
> to incorporate a friendly amendment from Dan Zuras.
>
> Also note that this motion is NOT a technical part of the
> standard, and is only meant to provide guidance in writing
> the actual standard. (We will soon start working on actual
> standard wording, at which time it will be more appropriate
> to analyze technical minutiae).
>
>
> During the voting period, the
> motion is not subject to amendment. A registered Voting Member may vote
> "Yes"
> "No"
> "No," but propose an amendment that would cause the voter to
> vote "Yes." The proposed amendment shall include detailed
> wording and rationale. Such "No" votes on position papers
> are NOT motions to amend. The purpose is to influence
> other voters.
> Of course, anyone may make any statements they wish, but those are not
> votes.
>
> All votes on position papers shall be public. The mechanism for voting is
> a
> message broadcast to <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. The ideal vote is
> Subject: Motion P1788/M0004.01_Keep_to_754 YES (or NO)
> Body: YES (or NO and proposed changes)
> Name
>
> The Voting Tabulator shall count as a vote any message in which the intent
> is clear.
>
> Instructions for registering for the working group may be found
> at
>
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/wg1788Reg.html
>
> Information about working group motions and supporting documents
> can be found in the public and private areas of the P1788 web
> site, accessible from
>
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/
>
> Please contact me (rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) if you need the user ID
> and password for the private area.
>
>
> A registered Voting Member may change her/his vote at any time during the
> voting period simply by broadcasting a fresh voting message.
>
> A registered Voting Member is NOT removed from the roster for not voting,
> as
> is the case for not voting on the proposed standard itself.
>
> A position paper requires a "Yes" vote by 2/3 of the registered Voting
> Members to pass. A quorum is 2/3 of the registered Voting Members. If
> necessary to achieve a quorum, the Voting Tabulator may solicit further
> votes, in which case, all not-yet-voted registered Voting Members shall be
> solicited equally.
>
>
> The motion text is as follows:
>
>
==========================================================
=====
>
> ===Motion P1788/M0004.01_Keep_to_754===
> Proposer: John Pryce
> Seconder: Dan Zuras
>
> ===Motion text===
>
> In our work on 1788 we will limit the scope of our consideration
> to those systems which present an environment that conforms to
> 754-2008. This limitation is done without prejudice and for the
> purpose of K.I.S.S. (Keeping It Simple Stupid) to simplify our
> discussions and specifications.
>
> ===Rationale===
>
> This motion is offered in the spirit of simplifying our task. We
> are all familiar with the characteristics of 754 environments.
> Confining our thoughts and discussions to such systems will give
> us common ground for understanding. And 1788 specifications
> couched in terms of that understanding can be made simpler than
> without it. Issues of things like the role and use of NaNs and
> infinity, signed zeros, transcendental functions, support of
> basic formats, and the like are all details that are not part of
> this motion. But all of those details are made easier to discuss
> in the future if this motion passes.
>
> The issue of whether or not a non-754-conforming system may yet
> conform to 1788 is also not part of this motion. That will
> depend on all the other normative statements we make in the
> future. We will almost certainly not use all the specifications
> of 754 to specify 1788. But it is expected that most such
> systems will not conform. The Cell chip may be an exception.
>
> Passing this motion saves us time and misunderstanding in the
> future. That's what this motion is about.
> ssing this motion saves us time and misunderstanding in the future.
> That's what this motion is about.
>
>
>
==========================================================
=====
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ralph Baker Kearfott
> (Acting chair: IEEE P1788)
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------