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

Re: P1788/M0014.01: 6.1_and_6.2 (mid-rad)

I, too would like to hear from people who actually have implemented mid-rad.
In particular, I think Siegfried Rump should weigh in on this.

Baker

On 5/4/2010 07:31, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:

Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 13:34:03 +0300
Subject: Re: P1788/M0014.01: 6.1_and_6.2 (compatibility with multi-precision)
From: "Hossam A. H. Fahmy"<hfahmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Vincent and P1788 group,

2010/5/4 Vincent Lefevre<vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>


On 2010-05-02 03:54:20 -0700, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:

       The 'dubious' nature of my concerns surround the
       problem that mid-rad intervals represent a quite
       different subset of the Real intervals than do the
       inf-sup forms.  I believe that it will require us
       to burden mid-rad forms further to represent these
       intervals (like [1e-100,1e+100]&  [3,+oo]) somehow.
       Is it sufficient to represent them as say,
       (5e+99,0,1e+100)&  (something+3,-something,+oo)?



.
.
.


	Remember the mid-rad form is chosen because of its
	utility in the case of very narrow intervals.  There
	may be algorithms that have the flavor of

		principleComponent + tinyAdjustment

	that would fail should the interval be too wide or
	the midpoint too far from the interval itself.

	Still, I trust you mid-rad guys can enlighten us.


				Dan




--

---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott,    rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx   (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work)                     (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------