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

Re: Motion 11



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear Dan,

Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> 	I believe your observation about Corollary 1 & arguments
> 	for the need for reverse operations both contribute to an
> 	approach along the lines George has suggested.
> 
> 	For example, Nate has pointed out the the lack of inverse
> 	operators within ordinary intervals can be repaired by the
> 	use of the Dual() operator.  Where
> 
> 		Dual([a,b]) = [b,a].
> 
> 	Thus, you can solve for yy in xx + yy = zz by
> 
> 		             xx + yy = zz
> 		(xx - Dual(xx)) + yy = zz - Dual(xx)
> 		          [0,0] + yy = zz - Dual(xx)
> 		                  yy = zz - Dual(xx)
> 
> 	All 4 basic operations may be inverted in this way.  (I
> 	will leave it to Nate to discuss the details on grounds
> 	of incompetence on my part. :-)

I do not know enough about modal interval arithmetic to have any
definitive argument about that. However, I doubt you can easily obtain
the same results as with reverse division. Once again, consider my example:

A=[0,2]
B=[-1,1]
C=[1,1]

with \circ=\times

and compute \times_1^-(B,C,A) = hull({x\in[0,2]\mid\exists b\in[-1,1],
x\times b\in[1,1]})

Can you obtain [1, 2] as a result? The n+1-ary reverse division will.

> 	Further, it is my understanding that inverse operations
> 	(for example, in Newton steps) can lead to tighter
> 	intervals than those defined in Motion 11.  Of course,
> 	one must intersect it with the original guess interval
> 	just as in Motion 11.

I am lost here. What do you call inverse operations?

> 	So I guess I'm suggesting the addition of the Dual()
> 	operator as something out of which the needed operators
> 	can be constructed.
> 
> 	Does this work?
> 	Would this be a simpler approach along the lines George
> 	has mentioned?
> 	Is anything else needed?

As I said, there is more to reverse operations than division. How would
reverse cosine be implemented with Dual (see example of use below)?


> 	In particular, are the 3-op forms needed given that we
> 	can just intersect the 2-op form with the original guess?
> 
> 	Anyone?  - Dan

No, because Corollary 1 is false.
You just have to consider the example above. Another one, taken from the
first paper I referred you to in a previous mail:

Say you know that x\in[20,26], and you have the *relation*: y=cos x,
with y\in[-0.3,0.2].

What can you infer about x from that? If you use some unary reverse
cosine, you cannot obtain anything useful for x. You have to use a
binary reverse cosine to take into account x's original domain *inside*
the operator. You will then be able to infer that x\in[6\pi+acos 0.2,
8\pi-acos 0.2]\approx[20.22,23.77].

F.
- --
Frédéric Goualard                                 LINA - UMR CNRS 6241
Tel.: +33 2 51 12 58 38    Univ. of Nantes - Ecole des Mines de Nantes
Fax.: +33 2 51 12 58 12            2, rue de la Houssinière - BP 92208
http://goualard.frederic.free.fr/               F-44322 NANTES CEDEX 3

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFLemFSEJvxJgN8HkgRAr5wAJ9cC5qceS9VCjUlH1FCr+ykL5jndwCg1k9m
zJ+8/0Z8GFIbIJkTFh18svU=
=0nno
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----