Re: Containment-only Interval Standard
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Arnold Neumaier
<Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 05:56 PM, Lee Winter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Michel Hack<hack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (1) Intervals as imprecise single values.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Intervals as bounded (or semibounded) ranges of separate values.
>>
>> I disagree. The above-described intervals do not specify collections
>> of values all of which are "active". Instead they represent a single
>> value,
>
>
> In all applications I know of, intervals represent bounds on the value of an
> unknown quantity.
>
>
> The difference between (1) and (2) is that in (1) the bounds are supposed to
> be narrow (high relative accuracy), as they represent a quantity that in
> reality has a particular value, whereas in (ii) the bounds are usually wide,
> as they represent a quantity that in reality ranges over very different
> possibilities, and one is interested in selecting a particular, ''good''
> one.
Goodness tends to be a multi-dimensional criteria Thus an
intermediate goal is often the selection of a collection of good
candidates from which the chosen value will be selected by other
means.
Lee Winter
NP Engineering
Nashua, New Hampshire
United States of America