Re: My thoughts on FTDIA
Nate Hayes wrote:
John, Arnold, P1788,
Thanks for sharing your opinions.
I'd like to re-iterate a few key points why I believe P1788 needs to pass
Motion 25.
As mentioned before, FTIA and FTDIA are both theories. All they do is
predict what are the valid results of an interval expression. Evaluation or
computation, by contrast, is the practice.
All we do with respect to P1788 is theory. Practice is the implemented
version.
On the other hand, it is the *property tracking* which actually computes
the
range enclosure and decoration on the left. In his own words, I believe
John
therefore demonstrates both the need for property tracking and its relation
to FTDIA.
Property tracking is also only theory. All it does is talk about
evaluation or computation.
Practice is the implemented version of whatever we discuss here.
Another key point.
For the reasons Arnold would have Motion 25 rejected:
Arnold Neumaier wrote:
But I think Motion 25 is far too low level on arithmetic operations...
Thus I would recommend voting No to the current version of the motion.
This is only half of the reason, and probably the less important half.
The other half is the way the motion treats intersection and union.
To my understanding, IEEE 1788 is *supposed* to be a standard that is
practically implementable at a low-level, notably at the hardware level. If
this is true, then John and Arnold need to show that FTDIA is
practicable at
this level, and even more importantly that such practice can be done in a
standardized manner. Neither of them have accomplished this.
This doesn't depend on whether the decorations are defined as bit
patterns (low level) or as abstract level 1 semantic units.
Implementability is trivial in both cases.