Nate Hayes wrote:
George Corliss wrote:
I agree. I suspect one factor contributing to the relatively low voter
turnout on 13 & 21 (did I say PLEASE VOTE) may be information overload.
Let's let a few of these run to completion.
I agree, too.
I also have the observation that yet another problem contributing to
confusion is that comparision relations are affected by wether intervals
such as [1,Infinity] are unbounded or bounded (say, because of an
IsBounded decoration or Overflow, etc.).
According to Motion 3, and in accordance with standard mathematical
practice, [1,Inf] is unbounded, no matter how decorations handle this.
If we cannot rely on accepted motions to discuss further motion
we'll always remain on ground zero and never get anywhere.
For example, on the one hand Arnold argues that the "interior" relation
in Motion 13.04 is not topological interior. THis criticism is valid
only for unbounded intervals. On the other hand, Arnold also advocates
an IsBounded deocration. In that case, the definition for "interior" in
Motion 13.04 _is_ the correct definition of topological interior (by his
own logic and reasoning as shown in recent e-mails in this forum).
No. No matter how intervals are represented, the inequality x>=1 always
defines the unbounded interval [1,Inf], and not a bounded surrogate
[1,Overflow] without a meaning as a set of real numbers.