Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Reasons (not) to vote Motion 27: NO

On 08/03/2011 01:51 AM, Nate Hayes wrote:

Arnold Neumaier wrote:



My conclusion (after discussing things with John Pryce, who originated
the
proposal now realized in Motion 26) was that all more than trivial
instances require individual attention.


If there are not any further examples, the now I am really convinced that
Motion 27-A1 must be passed.
and thereby allowing that inexperienced users who don't use decorations explicitly are allowed to have nonsense statements such as 
   y=1/(x intersect (x+1))
giving a safe result for x=[0,2].....
Motion 26 protects the inexperienced user, while the expert user can judge for themselves how to make use of the decorations. 


Arnold Neumaier