Re: A few examples
Dan Zuras wrote:
> Do I have all these correct?
No.
Ah, so you place your philosophy squarely in the tracking camp.
Good.
No, Dan.
The answers to some of your results are invalid, regardless. For example:
with xx = {[0,4],D3}
floor(xx) + (xx + 10) = {[10,18],D3}
is not a valid decoration, no matter which way the wind blows.
>> . . .
>>
>> > 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.
What is clear to me is some examples in your recent e-mail are not a
consequence of any FTDIA at all. So forgive me for being skeptical.
> 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.
Actually, it does.
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.
You did not demonstrate how to use the partial ordering to do reliable
computing; or how the tracked results are contained by it.
But most importantly...
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.
If the partial subset ordering does not contain the tracked results as
presented in the motion, then there is no FTDIA.
Do you realize this?
So, given that, will you now accept my amendment as friendly?
No.
Nate