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.