Re: Amendment to property tracking

["Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes.

It is also important to remember that both FTIA and FTDIA are theories. As 
such, all they do is make *predictions* about the result of an interval 
expression. Neither actually *compute* anything. So even though they are 
necessary, they are not enough for a standard.

For FTIA, this is why P1788 passed Motion 5, which provides interval 
arithmetic operations to compute range enclosures consistent with FTIA.

For FTDIA, this is why P1788 should pass Motion 25, which provides the 
necessary operations to compute decorations consistent with FTDIA.

As I've indicated in my friendly amendment to Motion 25, we have every 
reason to believe John and Arnold will find the proof.

Nate


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dominique Lohez" <dominique.lohez@xxxxxxx>
To: "Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg" <wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "stds-1788" <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: Amendment to property tracking


> Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg a écrit :
> >  I would like to raise the question:
> > "Do we really need an FTDIA ?"
> > or is an FTIA sufficient?
> Yes, we need FTDIA The meaning of the theorem is to fulfill the precept
>                         Thou shalt not lie
>        For the interval width , this leads to FTIA
>        For decorations this leads yo FTDIA
>       IMHO Interval arithmetic and Decoration Calculations must not be 
> dealt with separately
> Regards
>
> Dominique
>
> > Then, we would have do define how an algorithm can be performed on bare 
> > decoratiións. But that may be simpler
> >
> > Juergen
>
>
> --
> Dr Dominique LOHEZ
> ISEN
> 41, Bd Vauban
> F59046 LILLE
> France
>
> Phone : +33 (0)3 20 30 40 71
> Email: Dominique.Lohez@xxxxxxx