Re: Overflow and Inf
Arnold et al,
Greetings from SCAN 2010. I insert some comments below.
Baker
On 9/26/2010 12:25, Arnold Neumaier wrote:
Nate Hayes wrote [in: Comparisons and decorations]
Arnold Neumaier wrote:
Nate Hayes wrote:
Arnold Neumaier wrote:
Nate Hayes wrote:
makes the same difference as the two decorated intervals above. In this sense, the "IsBounded" decoration of interval [1,Infinity] can be viewed as an Overflow in disguise. The reson the opposite is not necissarily true, however, is that
certain representations are explicitly possible with Overflow that would not other-wise be possible with just an IsBounded interval deocration, e.g.
[-Infinity,Overflow] and [-Overflow,Infinity]
are two intervals that could not be represented if the IsBounded decoration is an attribute of the interval, itself.
And where are they needed?
I strongly oppose introducing possibilities only for the sake
that it is possible to define them.
The above statement makes sense to me within the context of a standard.
A standard should be as restrictive as possible, given the constraint
that it does not exclude something that has been useful in the past.
Again, are we taking care not to stifle innovation? What about things
that will be useful but we haven't discovered yet? In any case, is the
above statement standing on its own relevant to us?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------