Basenote drift to the value of mid-rad forms...
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:43:17 +0200
> From: Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: YES on Motion P1788/0019.01
>
> Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> >> . . .
> >>
> > I am moved by some papers on the subject to consider
> > that we must find a way to make mid-rads both efficient
> > & well characterized.
>
> But this is a research project for the future, not a matter for
> today's standards committee!
>
> Let those who have the expertise and interest to do so work on
> the research project and show that it can succeed.
>
> Let us consider how to standardize their achievements when such a
> project has born fruit.
Arnold, we both know you are in a better position to
judge these things than I am. So if your considered
& experienced judgement is that we should waste no
further time trying to save the mid-rad forms, then
save us now with a motion to eliminate them. I will
second it.
>
> . . .
>
> >> It is much better to stay with motion 16 until those who know
> >> this subject far better than you have come up with some convincing
> >> details on how we are to define midrad-only behavior in a way that among
> >> other things, in particular (i) and (ii) are catered for.
> >>
> >> If a strong proposal along these lines is made (which I consider very
> >> unlikely), it is still possible to relax Motion 16 at that time.
> >>
> >> But it is irrational to do it without having evidence that it would be
> >> an improvement of the standard-to-be.
> >>
> >>
> >> Arnold Neumaier
> >
> > Ah, so it is your position that the standard should
> > eliminate the mid-rad forms altogether in favor of
> > the inf-sup forms.
>
> No. My position is that the standard should follow Motion 16, which
> has a _required_ infsup format, and additional formats (one of which
> may be midrad) with a specified conversion behavior.
>
>
> > Then make a motion to that effect. I will second it.
>
> Since I only act as a scientific advisor but am not officially part
> of the voting body (I never registered), I do not want to (and cannot)
> make any motion. I only help others with making their motions more
> precise and useful (as happened in two cases so far, including
> Motion 16).
>
>
> > It is a defensible position. It would greatly
> > simplify our standards work to only have to deal with
> > the inf-sups from now on. And much that is
> > controversial about our current approach would have
> > easy & obvious solutions.
>
> Indeed. But the same holds if one follows the Vienna proposal in these
> matters, since there only minimal specifications are required for
> additional formats such as midrad arithmetic or Kaucher arithmetic.
>
>
> > But don't go into it thinking that we will not pay
> > a price for such a simplification. We will.
>
> Therefore the Vienna Proposal did not try to _eliminate_ midrad,
> but just made it optional except for conversion tools with a
> specified behavior.
>
> This leaves the door open for those who hope to be able to create
> a powerful midrad implementation, without forcing the rest of us
> to compromise the standard regarding the features that are needed
> to be able to work well with intervals containing zero, which are
> very poorly handled by midrad.
>
>
> Arnold Neumaier
Oh, Arnold, you WROTE the Vienna document. And you
& I both wrote motion 16. I think it is a bit late
to claim to be an uninvolved scientific advisor.
Very well, in the spirit of motion 16, if you would
like to eliminate mid-rads & don't feel you have the
right to make any further motions, state your motion
in writing & *I* will propose it.
But don't assert the uselessness of such forms with
one hand & assert that is OK for us to permit
'minimal specifications' for such things on the other.
We should either make a clean break or give them a
chance to come up with useful specifications.
This middle course you are taking is the worst of
both worlds. If what you say is correct then we
are wasting our time trying to do something that
can never be done.
Save us from that & take a clear position.
I assure you it will be heard.
Dan