Am 10.06.2011 17:54, schrieb Ralph Baker Kearfott:
P-1788:
1. Are there any objections to Jürgen's "discuss ... simultaneously and
... three weeks..."
2. I am assuming I may take Jürgen's support as a second for John's
position paper.
Jürgen, please inform me if this is not so.
Baker
I am the seconder of Nate's paper which presents a different approach to
decorated intervals. Hence, I think John's paper will be better seconded
by someone else. I am, however, not fixed in my decision how to define
and how to present decorated intervals. That's why I want a
thorough discussion.
We also must not forget the KISS priciple Keep It Simple, Stupid
Juergen
If there are no objections, the discussion period for John's
paper will begin, and the discussion period for Nate's paper will be
extended to
coincide with John's paper. (Hopefully, in that case, P-1788 members will
tender useful insight into the pros and cons of each, as well as common
pros and cons.)
Sincerely,
Baker
On 6/10/2011 10:33 AM, J. Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
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