Re: Arguments for supporting Motion P1788/0023.01:NoMidRad

[Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nate Hayes wrote:

> Of course, I do not agree with Arnold's views and positions on mid-rad 
> and Kaucher arithmetic. In particular, his assertion:
>
> "1.4. No strong case has been made that ... nonstandard arithmetic
> is actually more efficient on a significant class of problems than what
> can be done without it."
>
> Perhaps he does not care about industries such as CAD, CAM, computer 
> graphics, etc. where fast processing of polynomial b-splines and NURBS 
> is essential foundation of almost all computations. But these do 
> represent global, multi-billion dollar industries and with the proper 
> hardware support the Kaucher arithmetic will always be faster than a 
> processor supporting only textbook intervals as he advocates. This 
> subject has already been examined and discussed at length in this forum 
> and also in the position papers Arnold mentions; so I will refer to 
> those rather than taking time to repeat an elaboration of this topic again.


Indeed, we disagree on this.

Nage gave what he thinks is supporting evidence that Kaucher arithmetic 
is more efficient for certain computer graphics applications.

I gave support for my assessment that Kaucher arithmentic will not be
more efficient for the same computer graphics applications.

It is up to everyone to make their own assessment based on the two
position papers.


Arnold Neumaier