RE: Ar we succeeding?
I am thinking re how to incorporate intersection into the text that I have sent earlier to the mailing list, I think John is right that this is how intersection should be treated, and Nate is right that this way needs more justification.
________________________________________
From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ralph Baker Kearfott [rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Nate Hayes
Cc: John Pryce; stds-1788
Subject: 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
---------------------------------------------------------------