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: Tue, 31 May 2011 04:04:32 -0500
>
> 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.
Again, it doesn't matter.
The philosophy is another issue.
My amendment has to do with nomenclature only.
>
> . . .
>
> >> >> 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.
It doesn't matter.
It is a discussion for another day.
>
> . . .
>
> > 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.
As fallable as I am, it is not important if *I* can do it.
It is only important if the motion can do 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?
I neither realize this nor agree that it is true.
And it STILL has nothing to do with the amendment.
We can argue this later.
>
>
> >
> > So, given that, will you now accept my amendment as friendly?
>
> No.
>
> Nate
Folks,
I move to amend this motion as follows.
(1) That all mention of the bits D(f,X)+, D(f,X)-, & C(f,X)
be removed from consideration on the grounds that they belong
at a lower level.
(2) That the names of the decorations D0 through D4 be
replaced with John's 3 letter names on the grounds that the
notion that D0 < D1 < D2 < D3 < D4 is also an implementation
detail that belongs at a lower level.
(3) That an explicit statement of just the partial ordering
required for FTDIA be included so that this proof can be done
without reference to these lower level details.
Do I hear a second?
And, Nate, believe it or not & for all my mistakes, I really
am trying to make your motion more passable.
I may not succeed but I am trying.
Dan