Re: Ar we succeeding?
All,
Does someone else also have an opinion concerning this (please)?
Baker
On 05/24/2011 02:14 PM, Nate Hayes wrote:
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
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------