Re: Neumaier-Pryce proposed decoration system (v03.2)

["J. Wolff von Gudenberg" <wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Baker, John, P1788
I support the idea to discuss motion 25 and John's position paper on 
decorations simultaneiously and at least 3 weeks long. I've put the 
position paper on the website

regards
Jürgen
Am 10.06.2011 15:13, schrieb Ralph Baker Kearfott:
> John, P-1788,
>
> John:  Did you wish this to be treated as a formal motion, to be 
> seconded?
>        Also, voting is scheduled to start on Motion 25 (with 
> amendment) after
>        June 13.  Do you wish to start voting on your paper, or to 
> postpone
>        voting to allow further time for discussion?
>
>
> P-1788: Are there any objections to discussing and voting upon this 
> simultaneously
> with Motion 25?  If not, are there objections to postponing the voting?
>
> Baker
>
> On 6/10/2011 6:20 AM, J. Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
> > Am 09.06.2011 11:03, schrieb John Pryce:
> > > P1788
> > >
> > > Herewith, as a position paper, is the current version of the 
> > > Neumaier-Pryce proposed decoration system, §4.8 of the current draft 
> > > standard text v03.2.
> > >
> > > It is part of §4, the Level 1 specification. Subclauses 4.1-4.7, on 
> > > intervals, functions, expressions, required and recommended 
> > > operations (elementary functions) have been extensively revised 
> > > also; but Arnold and I wished to get the
> > > decoration part out for discussion alongside Nate's current position 
> > > paper.
> > >
> > > I think we and Nate have converged in many respects, though there 
> > > are still differences. Points to note:
> > >
> > > (1) We've added 2 decoration values ein and bnd.
> > > - "ein" means "empty input box xx" as suggested by Dominique.
> > > - Also the old "saf" is renamed "bnd" = "defined, continuous and 
> > > bounded on xx" while "saf" just means "defined and continuous on xx".
> > > This change is recent, and Arnold has taken on the task of verifying 
> > > and revising the correctness proof for this new scheme.
> > >
> > > (2) I have omitted a few parts of the decoration system, notably 
> > > decorated intersection and union on which Arnold and I do not 
> > > currently agree.
> > >
> > > (3) I have included 4.8.6. "Bare object arithmetic with a threshold" 
> > > which is an important concept originated by Nate. I haven't yet 
> > > updated it to handle the new scheme with ein and bnd added.
> > >
> > > Baker, would it be possible to have a discussion of Nate's and our 
> > > papers alongside? What about voting on both simultaneously?
> > >
> > > John

--
-                Prof. Dr. Juergen Wolff von Gudenberg
     o           Lehrstuhl fuer Informatik II
    / \          Universitaet Wuerzburg, Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg
InfoII o         Tel.: +49 931 / 31 86602 Fax ../31 86603
  / \  Uni       E-Mail:wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 o   o Wuerzburg