Re: A few examples
> From: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Dan Zuras Intervals" <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: A few examples
> Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 22:57:58 -0500
>
> Dan Zuras wrote:
>
> . . .
>
> > ...snip...
>
> >
> > Do I have all these correct?
>
> No.
Ah, so you place your philosophy squarely in the tracking camp.
Good.
>
>
> >> . . .
> >>
> >> > Well, as I recall only a partial ordering was necessary to
> >> > prove FTDIA. It was:
> >> >
> >> > empty < inDomain&Continuous < inDomain < in&Out
> >> > empty < outDomain < in&Out
> >> >
> >> > Where, as you pointed out, 'ill' need only be placed at
> >> > some level below level 1.
> >> >
> >> > So anything that fits this description would do the job.
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >> IMHO, Dan, it seems you understand pretty well.
> >>
> >> Nate
>
> Well, it *appeared* you were understanding, but now I see
> I was wrong, and that you've completely missed the point... :-(
You are correct. I was unclear whether you were espousing
a tracking or static philosophy. I hope I am clear on that
now.
>
>
>
> > Then, in keeping with your assertion that this is a
> > level 1 only motion, let me suggest an amendment.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > So the amendment is: Eliminate discussion of implementation
> > details such as bits & numbering of decorations; rename the
> > decorations as John once did; & make an explicit statement
> > about the partial ordering required.
> >
> > That way this motion gives us everything we need for an
> > FTDIA at level 1 with as little controversy as possible.
> >
> > Will you accept this amendment as friendly or should I ask
> > for a second?
>
> Dan, what you are proposing is to eliminate the whole purpose of the motion:
> property tracking. Clearly when you don't follow the Definition 3, you get
> lots of wrong answers that will quickly cause most interval algorithms to
> fail.
>
> So I will certainly not accept this as a friendly amendment!!
>
> Nate
Ah, but my amendment has nothing to do with my understanding
or misunderstanding of your philosophy of decorations.
I merely move to amend the motion to remove bits & details
of implementation that clearly do not belong at level 1.
And, further, to make explicit the partial ordering that is
required for FTDIA to be proven.
Issues of tracking versus static can wait until we discuss
the merits of your motion. And I can go either way on that
so long as I am clear just WHICH way we are going.
So, given that, will you now accept my amendment as friendly?
Dan