Re: Motion on ``discontinuous'' decoration bit

["Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John, P1788,

Attached is a paper that I think is relevant to this discussion. In
particular, please see section 5.2 "Relation to the Addition of Interval
Hulls".

This seems to further suggest non-IEPF's in general needn't be "singled out"
or "forbidden", particularly with the currently-proposed Level 1 definition 
of continuity (which appears to be the same as D-continuity in the attached 
paper).

Nate



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Pryce" <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "P1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Motion on ``discontinuous'' decoration bit


> George & all
>
> On 1 Sep 2010, at 11:55, Corliss, George wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:39 AM, John Pryce wrote:
> > > But this email is about another point in these discussions.
> > >
> > > Being stubborn, I persist in thinking that it would be useful IF it were
> > > possible to specify a function as being explicitly "an interval
> > > extension of a point function" so it contains NO intersection and union
> > > operations. Let's call such an f an IEPF.
> > If we adopt something like that, what ARE intersect(), union(), hull()?
> They exist, can be used in any code that isn't an IEPF, and are handled by
> Nate's recipe. But they are forbidden (by "some means" TBD) to appear in
> an IEPF.
>
> John

Attachment: haus2_RC_12_2006.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document