Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Correction: It should be Motion P1788/M0006.01_Table_of_operations



Kearfott Ralph B wrote:
P1788 members:

Sorry, I got the number wrong.  It is Motion 5.  (If it comes
to fruition, John's motion would be Motion 6.)

I repeat the motion and reattach the attachment:

---------------------------------------------------------------
IEEE P1788 members:

The motion tendered by Bo Einarsson has been seconded by Nate
Hayes, so it is now open for a formal three-week discussion
period.  The motion is as follows (with the referenced document
attached).

The formal discussion period will continue until Saturday, June 13,
at which time formal voting will begin, unless the motion is
withdrawn by its proposer. (Friendly amendments do not constitute withdrawal.)

When discussing this motion in particular, please have
     Motion P1788/M0005.01_Table_of_operations

in the subject line of your message.

The motion reads as follows:
==============================================

I submit the document "Arithmetic operations for intervals" written
by Ulrich Kulisch as a formal motion (motion 5) to be voted upon.

The document gives the definition of the arithmetic operations for
intervals in a way that is simple to read, simple to understand, and
simple to implement. It is short and understandable and to the point.
It should be adopted as a basis for the future work of IEEE P1788.

The document is enclosed as a PDF document (4 pages) to facilitate its
reading.

I don't agree with the use of the empty set when dividing by an interval that includes 0. For me the empty set should be reserved when the problem at hand has indeed no solution and not when the problem is not well defined.

JPM