Re: Ar we succeeding?
John Pryce wrote:
Following on my last email, I attach the paving for Nate's example,
produced by my Matlab B&B algorithm based on the Neumaier-Pryce
decoration scheme. You can see it is pretty well identical to Nate's. So
we CAN do it
IMHO, John, you are simply avoiding/sidestepping the issue.
As you've shown in your last two e-mails:
-- The new definitions do not contradict the v3.01 definitions
-- The v3.01 definitions do fail when using the intersection operation
-- The new definitions do repair the failure in the v3.01 definitions
Your choice to use addition instead of intersection is no suprise to me,
considering these facts.
I agree this choice is arbitrary. But such an arbitrary choice made by a
user under the v3.01 definitions still leads to catastrophic failure. Are
you seriously advocating we should stick with the v3.01 definitions?
Nate