Re: Neumaier-Pryce proposed decoration system (v03.2)
On 2011-06-09 10:03:58 +0100, John Pryce wrote:
> 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.
I've started to look at it, and before going further, I have two
remarks about (6) and (7).
1. Concerning the definition of p_{bnd}, I suppose that x is required
to be non-empty, like in p_{saf}. This is also implied by (8).
2. There is apparently a contradiction between the definitions (6)
and the inclusions (7). For instance, (7) implies that:
ein is included in def
But from the definitions, ein contains only pairs (f,x) where x is
empty and def contains only pairs (f,x) where x is nonempty, so that
ein and def are disjoint. Since ein is not the empty set, there's a
contradiction.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)