Re: A proposal for motion 5 "Arithmetic operations for intervals"

[John Pryce <prycejd1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

P1788

I agree with Jürgen. He suggests the level 3 part of the standard  
could contain the Kulisch tables, and say something like "any  
implementation functionally equivalent to these conforms to the level  
2 definitions".

Ulrich: since 754 section 5.4.1 collects together
  addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, squareRoot,  
fusedMultiplyAdd
as basic arithmetic operations, would it be appropriate for you to  
add the last two of these to your set of tables?

On 2 Jun 2009, at 21:11, Jürgen Wolff v Gudenberg wrote:
> I think the standard should include both forms the definition and a  
> level 3 implementation
> Juergen
>
> Vincent Lefevre schrieb:
> > On 2009-05-22 10:55:40 +0200, Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> > > Compare the complexity of Kulisch's definition with the simplicity
> > > of that of the Vienna Proposal, which handles all that needs to be
> > > said about the forward mode of all unary and binary operations in
> > > two simple formulas taking less than half a page:
> > [...]
> > Well, as I understand it, the Vienna Proposal proposes a definition,
> > while Kulisch's paper proposes a high-level implementation. But
> > that's not the goal of a standard to propose an implementation.

Regards

John Pryce