Motion 13

[Ulrich Kulisch <Ulrich.Kulisch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Baker:

I was out of town with other duties last week and unable to react on 
last minute comments on Motion 13. As far as I understand the rules I 
cannot change the motion now since voting began already. So I withdraw 
the motion and submit it again with minor changes in the lower part of 
page 2 and with thanks for comments by Dominique Lohez and Vicent 
Lefevre. (Perhaps: Can you extend the discussion period by one week and 
start voting again). I am sorry for the trouble.

I think the problem with the empty set should be further discussed. I 
have great sympathy with Dan's mail of April 22. I had very similar 
thoughts when I was working on my book. I studied modells representing 
the empty set by a tuple aiming to avoid the necessity of frequent 
checking for it. 
In a mail of April 22 Arnold Neumaier wrote:
"This is just to let you know of Siegfried Rump's decision to remove 
empty intervals from Intlab Version 6;".
This certainly is a very interesting remark. It is out of question that 
we need the empty set in interval arithmetic. But do we really have many 
applications where the empty set is used as an operand?
In a mail of April 23 Juergen wrote:
"I strongly propose to stay with our clear math. model and not to 
sacrifice the empty set for efficiency."

The solution might be distinguishing between (and stay with) the clear 
math. model of \ol{IR} and the practical model of \ol{IF}\setminus empty 
set.

Best wishes
Ulrich

--
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)
für Angewandte und Numerische Mathematik (IANM2)
D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
Prof. Ulrich Kulisch

Telefon: +49 721 608-2680
Fax: +49 721 608-6679
E-Mail: ulrich.kulisch@xxxxxxx
www.kit.edu
www.math.kit.edu/ianm2/~kulisch/

KIT - Universität des Landes Baden-Württemberg und nationales Großforschungszentrum in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft

Attachment: CompRel4.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document