Re: Midpoint paper (2012-02-08 version)
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:40:20 +0100
> From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Midpoint paper (2012-02-08 version)
>
> On 2012-02-15 15:36:36 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2012-02-14 13:27:18 +0000, John Pryce wrote:
> > > When I suggested a while back that a floating point format F should
> > > be associated to T as part of its definition, I seem to recall this
> > > was pooh-poohed as unnecessary. But the current discussion shows,
> > > IMO, that it IS necessary, and might indicate some requirements for
> > > such an F.
> >
> > I think that what can be necessary are the requirements, not the
> > fact that some FP format is associated with T, i.e. such a FP
> > format need not be unique.
>
> And hence, the notion of "compatible" format, with a list of
> requirements.
>
> --
> Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
At the very least, would you consider that one of those
compatibility requirements should be that all endpoints
within T be representable within F?
This would require a direct compatibility for inf-sups
(i.e. the same format) & a derived one for mid-rads
(with greater precision & slightly greater range).
It would be at the top of MY list.
Dan