Re: Discussion period started Re: Proposal of Motion 6, version 3

["J. Wolff v. Gudenberg" <wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John, I agree with Vincent's definitions

Juergen

John Pryce schrieb:
> Vincent
>
> On 6 Aug 2009, at 00:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > On 2009-07-29 10:00:45 +0200, Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> > > Jürgen Wolff v Gudenberg schrieb:
> > > >  I think  motion 6  will give a solid foundation of the standard
> > >
> > > I agree that Motion 6 converged to something convincing.
> > > (The criticism by Dominique Lohez that ± infinity are handled
> > > as numbers seems to me unfounded; they occur only as bounds,
> > > not as elements of intervals.)
> > >
> > > Therefore, I recommend voting with yes.
> >
> > I completely agree. But here are a few comments:
> > ...
>
> Many thanks for this very careful reading, and insightful comments. More 
> detailed response shortly. I wonder what other people think about 
> "interval mapping" including "interval function" instead of them being 
> mutually exclusive?
>
> John
interval mapping should include interval function
--
=======
      o          Prof. Dr. J. Wolff v. Gudenberg,  Informatik 2
     / \         Univ. Wuerzburg,  Am Hubland,   D-97074 Wuerzburg
 info2 o        Tel.: +49 931 / 31-86602  Fax: +49 931 / 888-6603
   / \  Uni             e-mail: wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  o   o Wuerzburg         http://www2.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/