But I DO like the smell of Motion 7...

[Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	Some observations about the form of Motion 7:

	I should say that, in spite of voting against this motion
	along with John on the grounds that we should have our
	discussion first, I DO like the form given by Prof Gudenberg.

	Namely that NaIs should (in my language, not his):

	(1) Never be returned by an operation on F intervals.

	(2) Can only be created from outside the world of intervals.
		That with one NaI the only example is constructors.
		With multiple NaIs, there may be more.

	(3) That once created are propagated universally.

	(4) That all comparisons on NaIs are false except for
		isNaI(NaI).  I would extend this to all predicates.
		For example: isSingleton(), isInfinite(), & the like.

	(5) That there is an empty set constructor.

	However, I would wait on the issue of the representation
	of NaI at this time.  The form may follow the function once
	we decide on that function. :-)

	We would do well to follow his example & demand that all our
	NaIs obey these principles.

	Given that, we may end up discovering that there is no
	functional difference among the NaIs we define after all.

	If so, we should reconsider the notion of a unique NaI.

	Yours,

				Dan