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

Re: Request for motion [Fwd: Input from IFIP WG 2.5 to IEEE Interval Standards Working Group]



Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:25:08 +0200
Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:

	Finally, let me caution you that how these things behave on
	empty & NaI elements may turn out to be important to this
	group.
I think only interval-valued results for noninterval inputs should be provided by the standard. Then there are no problems.

	Well, I am concerned about the elements chosen from empty
	or NaI intervals that end up being elements of the vectors
	in one of these operations.

It is impossible to choose an element from an empty set, and
it is meaningless to choose one from NaI since this has not
a set-theoretic interpretation.

Independent of that, the accurate sums etc are mappings from finite sequences of float data to intervals, and hence whatever choices there have been made, they are made already outside these functions. Thus the latter's definition is independent of them.


If some element is NaN or two terms in the sum are +inf and -inf,
the result should be the empty set; otherwise the tightest enclosing
interval of the exact result should be returned.

	Careful here.  Please look at clause 9.4 in 754-2008.

	In the case of sum or dot product you are quite correct.

	But in the case of the norm operations (sum of squares &
	sum of absolute value) the existence of an infinity determines
	the value of the norm even if a NaN element is to be found
	elsewhere in the vector.

We don't need to conform to this buggy IEEE semantics.

The exact sum 0/0+inf _may_not_ have the value inf, since it is
undefined in the theory of real numbers.

Our functions enclose the exact result, and the exact enclosure of an
undefined object can only be a (perhaps decorated) empty set or NaI.


But we must be clear in giving our functions a precise meaning,
and should explicitly mention this deviation from the IEEE semantics
of a
different, but related function.



	The rules are complicated & vary a bit from operation to
	operation.  They are also controversial & I will not bother
	justifying them again here.

They are buggy, hence controversy is highly justified.
Nobody should rely on this feature!


Arnold Neumaier