Motion P1788/M0011.01: NO
My vote is NO.
My reasons are as those of Alexandre Goldsztejn (today):
> Rational: The motion on reverse operations should clearly show that
> the three arguments extended interval division is necessary, and
> should define one variable functions reverse operations (like sin,
> cos, exp, ect.). The motion should also have a didactic role, since
> reverse operations are not well known to the majority. However in my
> opinion Motion 11.01 misses this later aim: For example Definition 8
> is not clear to me, while it is the key point of this motion.
and I also agree with Frédéric Goualard (16 Feb):
> Can reverse operators be implemented from operations already in the
> standard? No, they cannot. At least not without sacrificing performances
> beyond the reasonable.
I don't know enough of the details to judge this, but several people with experience have said it.
> I believe with George Corliss that we should keep the standard as simple
> as possible. I voiced my dissent on some previous motions with that same
> argument. However, supporting reverse operators adds operators to the
> standard, not complexity.
Well stated!
> Supporting decorated intervals, that is
> something that added complexity.
The more I study them, the more I agree with this.
My vote would change to YES if the motion were rewritten from scratch on the lines suggested by Goldsztejn and Goualard and others.
A PLEA... In the Nov 2009 burglary when my laptop was stolen, I lost the email from Arnold Neumaier dated, I believe, June 2008, which in my view sets out the case for reverse operations with unimpeachable clarity. Can someone dig it out and send me a copy?
John Pryce