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

Re: Overflow and Inf

Nate Hayes wrote:
I suppose that also eliminates any consideration that P1788 should include or investigate further the "DirectedInf" mechanism in the Vienna Proposal.
I don't understand. DirectedInf is simply the inf with the interpretation as in the last section of the Vienna proposal, 
fully settled there.
The only new thing emanating from the recent discussion is
that it apparently can be implemented as a nonstandard Inf
without violating 754 rules.

I haven't yet had the time to read through the 754 documentation
to find out whether this is indeed so.

If it is, nothing else needs to be researched about it.
If it is not, then we cannot make use of DirectedInf in a 754 context.
(Neither can one use Overflow, which propagates the same way as DirectedInfbut has a more complex semantics that conflicts with 
Motion 3.)



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.