Re: YES on Motion P1788/0019.01
Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 13:28:55 -0500
From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: P1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Motion P1788/0019.01: Explicit/Implicit idatatypes -- voting period begins
P1788 members:
The discussion period for Motion 19 is now officially ended, and
the voting period herewith begins, to run until the end of Saturday,
October 2. (The voting period may be extended at the discretion
of the vote tabulator if a quorum is not reached by then.) The
voting rules are those for position papers.
I vote YES on motion 19. - Dan
P.S. - I know yes votes should go uncommented but I feel
I should point out that the recent discussion about this
motion excluding mid-rads is false. Motion 19 is, in
fact, designed to find a way to INCLUDE mid-rads in a
manner that does not water down the specifications for
inf-sup forms. Please don't vote on misinformation.
I think you should expand your (in my view completely unsupported)
claim by letting everyone know in which way this design allows
what you claim it does.
If the motion allows an implementation to conform to the standard
if it has no infsup datatype, how can the standard require, say,
the following two items:
(i) provision of support for [0,inf] without overestimation
(ii) a square root evaluation that is tightest
(both very sensible and important requirements in the context of
applications to solving constrained nonlinear systems and global
optimization)?
It is even difficult to motiviate why one should prescribe this just
for an infsup implementation if provided, since the standard then
makes very different requirements for infsup and midrad.
Essentially, a standard modelled after this motion but restrictive
for infsup must be of the form:
(a) for infsup, require a lot,
(b) for midrad require almost nothing
(b) is necessary since there is neither theory nor practice that
can tell what would be meaningful requirements in this case).
I hope the majority of voters is rational enough to vote in a way
that serves those having to live with the standard in the future,
rather than voting to avoid dissens with a few who want the standard
to reflect issues that in the past (and for good reasons0 never had
enough life blood to lead to a serious implementation.
Arnold Neumaier