Is there a second? Re: Position paper and motion on comparisons

[Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Juergen,

Thank you for proffering the motion.  Do I have a second?

Baker

On 9/3/2010 9:28 AM, Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
> Baker
> Yes such a function is necessary
> Let me rephrase the motion  tomake it clearer (hopefully)
>
> Motion 21
> "P1788 should provide access to the states of the interval overlapping
> relation. In particular it should provide a function on two intervals a and b whose range is the set of 13 states defined by tables 1 and 2.
> Additionally the functionality of the abstract data type IOV described by table 8 in section 5 of the position paper should be available.
> For full flexibility the atomic operations shall be available as comparisons, see Table 9."
>
> Juergen
>
> Am 02.09.2010 19:22, schrieb R. Baker Kearfott:
> > Juergen (et al),
> >
> > Before I ask for a second, can you please clarify what P1788
> > is being asked to provide. In particular, is it being asked
> > to provide a function on two intervals a and b whose range is
> > precisely the set of 13 stated defined by tables 1 and 2?
> Yes such a function is necessary
>
> > Baker
> >
> > On 9/1/2010 9:21 AM, Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
> > > P1788
> > > we have updated our position paper
> > >
> > > Interval Comparisons and Lattice Operations
> > > based on the Interval Overlapping Relation
> > >
> > > see http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/PositionPapers/overlapping.pdf
> > > or attachement
> > >
> > > based on that paper I move the following motion
> > > "P1788 should provide access to the states of the interval overlapping
> > > >> relation"
> > >
> > > This motion is to be understood as a supplement to motion 13.04.
> > > The advantages are outlined in the position paper that serves as
> > > rationale for the motion.
> > >
> > > Juergen

Attachment: overlapping.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document