Re: Motion 31: V04.2 Revision of proposed Level 1 text
On 2012-02-07 13:04:09 -0600, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> John, Ulrich, et al,
>
> I'm not sure where the disagreement is, and it
> seems like there is a bit of misunderstanding.
> In particular, motion 9, see
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1788/private/Motions/AllMotions.html
> passed, and it says that the dot product will
> be in the standard. Thus, the argument must
> be related to how or where it is specified
> in the actual standards document.
>
> Regarding "exact" vs "accurate" or "faithful" dot product,
> this is still an element of informal, offline discussion.
> The title
> of Motion 9 was "exact dot product," so I assume
> this is what we voted on. (My link to the motion
> itself comes up blank.) The position paper is
> a description of uses of the dot product, but
> is not written as a motion, so it is not
> immediately apparent what the standard is to mandate.
> At the risk of delaying voting on the standard
> text, I wonder if someone would like to proffer
> a clarifying motion.
I think that P1788 should not do the job of 754. I even wonder
whether it is allowed to specify things from the domain of the
others standards (such as 754 and language standards).
Concerning the exact dot product, I propose to suggest the inclusion
in the next IEEE 754 revision first, before considering it for 1788.
Moreover the dot product could be regarded like the other operations.
Whether it (as an interval operation, i.e. an interval extension of
the point function) should be required or not, I don't know.
If it is specified, how about also specifying the sum of n terms
(which is a particular case of the dot product)?
--
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 / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)