Re: Four vs. five decorations
Dominique Lohez wrote:
Nate Hayes a écrit :
so for the sake of keeping discussion focused, I attach a PDF
addressing my thoughts only on the first of these two issues. I'll give
examples later addressing the topic of bare decorations.
IMHO the touble with set operators lies that as noted their behavior
depends on extra information.
So the position of Arnold Neumaier may be valid if the stated conditions
hold.
???
Of the various examples noted in:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/email/msg03570.html
the failures are caused by these conditions.
I've yet to see a counter-example that shows how *any* use of intersection
and union with FTDIA gives valid results, except by accident or coincidence.
So my conclusion is the theory as presented is invalid.
However these conditions are very restrictive.
Keeping these operators should be
So either a way to use the conclusion only in the good context can be
found
Or a very poor version of the set operators must be kept so that the
precept
Thou shan't lie is followed
On may then think like John that the set operators must be omitted
Certainly an IEEE 1788 standard without intersection and union operators
will not be acceptable.
Nate
Sincerely
Dominique
Sincerely,
Nate
--
Dr Dominique LOHEZ
ISEN
41, Bd Vauban
F59046 LILLE
France
Phone : +33 (0)3 20 30 40 71
Email: Dominique.Lohez@xxxxxxx