RE: Constructors motion
Dear Nate,
I have a great respect for modal interval arithmetic, I have read some of their papers and I agree that they have very interesting results, but I am still far from the general understanding of how it leads to operations.
It is my impression that even Sergey Shary who worked there for a year, had several joint papers with them, and has papers of his own that use Kaucher arithmetic, does not have a very clear impression of the general case and how to round in this general case. Maybe I am wrong, I am sending him a copy of this email.
Your email is the first time when I read about how to round Kaucher arithmetic, I may have missed it earlier.
I understand that in modal arithmetic, normal interval is interpreted as a universal quantifier, while a dual interval is interpreted as an existential quantifier. It is not as clear what to do if we have intervals of both type, since exists x forall y is not the same as forall y exists x.
What you are saying it: there are justifications in Gardenes, maybe, I read his papers (maybe I read the wrong ones), and it is still not clear to me (again, on specific examples described in RC papers it is all clear, what is not so clear is the general description).
With this standard, we have been successfully nitpicking, and found minor (but important) mistakes in the very clear text proposed by Arnold Neumaier -- and in many texts proposed by others. I would urge everyone to be very cautious and not to add, to the standard, parts where most of us do not have a good understanding.
I may be wrong and there may be some papers where the rounding of arithmetic operations in modal interval analysis is clearly explained, in this cases, please send references to everyone.
What you are describing is a few examples, not a general description. For example, it is not clear to me how based on your interpretation, we should define the sum of generic (normal or dual) intervals and why we should round the way you suggest.
Vladik
________________________________________
From: Nate Hayes [nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 3:28 PM
To: Kreinovich, Vladik; Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg; Dan Zuras Intervals
Cc: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Constructors motion
Hi Vlaidk,
Thanks for the feedback. I get the digital rounding formulas from the
quantified interpretation of the Kaucher arithmetic, i.e., the modal
intervals of Gardenes, et. al.
For example, if X=[1,2] and we quantify reciprocal as
(for all x in X)(exists y in Y) y = 1/x (1)
then we can perform any outward rounding such that
[1/2,1] \subseteq Y,
and Y=[0.4,1.1] would be example of a very pessimistic but valid enclosure.
This is FTIA we all are familliar with.
If instead we quantify reciprocal as
(for all y in Y)(exists x in X) y = 1/x (2)
then we must perform an inward rounding such that
Y \subseteq [1/2,1],
i.e., in the outward rounded result Y=[0.4,1.1] there is no x in [1,2] for
the value 1/x when y = 0.4 so (2) would be false. But for all y in [0.6,0.9]
there is x in [1,2] for (2) to be true.
Note that (1) and (2) are both true iff Y is exact.
For the digital roundings, there is a "dual computing theorem" that
transforms the problem of finding the inner rounding into an equivalent
computation that uses only the outward rounding, e.g.:
1/[1,2]=[roundDown(1/2),roundUp(1/1)]=[0.4,1.1]
is the outward-rounded result of proper interval [1,2] and
1/[2,1]=[roundDown(1/1),roundUp(1/2)]=[0.9,0.6]
is the inward-rounded result of improper interval [2,1]. This means that
computation of both inward and outward roundings come for free with a
Kaucher/modal implementation... and implementers only need to provide an
outward rounding to accomodate both. For those that are interested, Gardenes
et. al. discuss this in thier papers.
But implementers don't need to know the full theory... in practice these
formulas are very easy to implement.
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kreinovich, Vladik" <vladik@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Nate Hayes" <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg"
<wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Dan Zuras Intervals"
<intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 3:19 PM
Subject: RE: Constructors motion
> Dear Nate,
>
> The very fact that you have to explain shows that most of us are not that
> familiar with the semantics of Kaucher intervals (level 1). While for
> normal intervals, it is very clear what we want (a range and if exact
> range is not possible, an enclosure for the range) this is much less clear
> for Kaucher intervals. Before we start talking about level 2
> implementations, we need to understand level 1. I know of several
> semantics, I am not sure they all lead to exactly the same roundings.
>
> For example, if we add two normal intervals [a,b] and [c,d], the lower
> endpoint of the sum a+c is rounded down. What you are saying is that if we
> inverse them and add [b,a] and [d,c], then the same sum a+c becomes an
> upper endpoint and thus, according to your formula, is rounded up not
> down.
>
> This may be true, but without a clear understanding of why this is not a
> good idea to add it to the standard.
>
> My understanding is that we are somewhat behind with normal intervals, so
> unless this issue can be resolved quickly, I do not think it is a good
> idea to add Kaucher intervals to the proposed standard at this point.
> What is necessary -- and I agree with you on that -- is to make sure that
> we do not block the way for future extensions to Kaucher intervals.
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nate Hayes
> [nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:11 PM
> To: Nate Hayes; Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg; Dan Zuras Intervals
> Cc: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Constructors motion
>
> Nate Hayes wrote:
>> A valid computer implementation of Kaucher addition is:
>> [a,b] + [c,d] = [roundDown(a+b),roundUp(c+d)]
>
> Dang type-o.
>
> Of course I meant:
> [a,b] + [c,d] = [roundDown(a+c),roundUp(b+d)]
>
> Nate
>