Re: "still unclear on infinite intervals"
Dan et al,
Wasn't the "still unclear" addressed when motion 3 passed?
That motion states that intervals are closed and connected
sets of real numbers. Thus, 0 * (any interval) = 0
(and infinite bounds are not to be construed to mean
infinity is included.)
Please correct me if I am wrong or if there are cases not covered
under that motion.
Baker
P.S. Other extended interval arithmetics define 0*\infty, and
can also be used. However, we have decided to standardize
with 0*interval = 0. (personal opinion): it is more important,
at least in this case, that the programmer know how the system
defines it, and that the system is the same across platforms,
than what the actual definition is.
On 05/25/2011 09:51 AM, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
From: "Corliss, George"<george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Dan Zuras Intervals<intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: "Corliss, George"<george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ralph Baker Kearfott
<rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "<stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: What is your philosophy? Tracking or Static?
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:37:51 +0000
.
.
.
Or, suppose
x is a scalar
f(x) = sign(x)
y = 0 * f(x)
Is y a continuous function of x?
I am becoming a static-ist.
George
.
.
.
nature of the computations. And the latter which (I presume)
is everywhere zero no matter the input. (Although I'm still
a little unclear as to things like that on infinite intervals.)
As you academics say: Justify your answer.
Dan
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph 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
---------------------------------------------------------------