Re: Motion 13
Ulrich,
As informal parliamentarian, I suggest that since you are neither the mover (Bo Einarsson) nor seconder (Dan Zuras), you have no official standing to withdraw the motion.
As Voting Tabulator, I am supposed to count as a "vote" the intent of the voter. It seems clear you do not favor the motion as currently under vote. Would you like me to count you as voting "NO?"
As a participant/observer, it appears that several significant reservations have arisen, and it might be best if you, Bo, Dan, John, and others revised and resubmitted Motion 13, but that is up to Bo and Dan as mover and seconder, respectively.
Dr. George F. Corliss
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
1515 W. Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881 USA
414-288-6599; GasDay: 288-4400; Fax 288-5579
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg
On May 3, 2010, at 1:53 AM, Ulrich Kulisch wrote:
> 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
>
>
> <CompRel4.pdf>