Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Overflow and Inf

Arnold et al,

Yes, that makes sense.

Baker

On 9/29/2010 08:56, Arnold Neumaier wrote:

Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:

On 9/26/2010 12:25, Arnold Neumaier wrote:

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?


It is impossible to account for things not ywet discovered.

And it is unwise to account for things that still need research
to find out how to do it well. The right placce to consider these is
when a standard is upgraded and the relevant information is then
available.


Arnold Neumaier







--

---------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------