Re: My thoughts on FTDIA
Nate Hayes wrote:
The other half is the way the motion treats intersection and union.
The motion text does not address intersection and union.
The motion contains a Section 3.1 Lattice operatons,
which treats union and intersection.
It is not clear which part of your text defines the motion.
The section doesn't make sense as a ''rationale'' for the preceding
but provides additional substance.
Since you now say explicitly that the motion is not meant to be about
this section, you should take it out.
Anyhow, the formulation of intersection in v3.01 may lead to catastrophic
failures in interval algorithms. Clearly this is not acceptable.
This is already corrected in John Pryce's new (not yet public) draft.
This doesn't depend on whether the decorations are defined as bit
patterns
(low level) or as abstract level 1 semantic units.
Motion 25 does not define any bit patterns.
The decorations are abstract level 1 units.
But phrased in terms of bits, in Section 2.2 of the motion.