Re: Some thoughts on Motion 19 (still under vote)
John, P-1788,
On 9/17/2010 3:56 AM, John Pryce wrote:
Arnold, P1788
First:
It has been pointed out that the Motion 19 position paper (M19 for short) contradicts M16.
This seems to be true, and was an oversight.
- I guess the 2nd clause of "proposed revised Conformance requirements" in 3.4 of M19 is not compatible with M16's requirement "a conforming implementation shall support at least one inf-sup type".
- Does the group see any other incompatibilities?
Chair, what to do? Must Dan and I withdraw the motion and resubmit after revision? Or can we make a "what we really meant was..." statement, and the group continues the vote? (I think in a face to face meeting that would be allowed.)
I think withdrawal of the motion and resubmission would be the most formally correct
procedure that no-one would question. Within our present framework, this would
involve another 6 weeks, something with which I am uncomfortable.
However, we are already 1/3 through the voting period, and there's a good chance we
won't get a quorum anyway. It would be nice for P-1788 to finish its work and deliver
the draft to the MSC within our original allotted time, but it is not uncommon for a working
group to ask for and receive an extension. (The latter is not guaranteed, though.)
All in all, I recommend withdrawing it, strengthening it according to Arnold's and others'
inputs, and resubmitting it. In future, I strongly recommend that people take the
discussion periods seriously and give input then, rather than waiting until voting
is already underway.
Here is a personal opinion on the motion: I support requiring an inf/sup type, which
for simplicity might be based on 754, yet I also
like the general idea of motion 19, namely, defining implicit types whose main restriction
is that the result of an operation is always contained in the exact range of that operation.
That condition is a minimum required for mathematical rigor.
Sincerely,
Baker
P.S. John: Do you presently have enough guidance to proceed with other parts of
the draft standard verbiage while we wait for the outcome of Motion 19?