2010/5/10 Ralph Baker Kearfott
<rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
I point out again that mid-rad is an important component
"under the hood" of INTLAB, which I perceive to be the
most widely-used interval package. (Again, correct me
if this statement is inaccurate.)
Baker
On 5/10/2010 03:21, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 09:52:27 +0200
.
.
.
P1788
in order to KISS to keep our standard simple, we
should not add mid-rad as a first-class format.
Juergen
.
.
.
We could use KISS to: get in, get out, right a quick
& correct inf-sup only standard& be home by Christmas.
But if we do a disservice to the interval community by
leaving half of them out of it, what have we really
accomplished?
.
.
.
I think it is better to standardize both rather than
confuse the world with approved& non-approved
intervals.
So since we cannot eliminate mid-rad as a concept,
our question becomes: Do we admit it as an deprecated
addition to an inf-sup standard or do we write a
standard with both on equal footing?
Before Hossam wrote his note I was in favor of the
former. Now I think the latter has merit. Ultimately
you all are more qualified to answer this question
than I am.
But I think it deserves your serious thought.
End of soapbox. :-)
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
---------------------------------------------------------------