Re: John's asinh split versus convert-to-sortable...
All,
If I may temporarily take off my "acting chair" hat
(passing the chair back to Nathalie), and state
an opinion as a regular member, I must say I agree
with Arnold on this point. However, I nonetheless
have found the discussion on splits interesting,
with possible good ideas for improvements to existing
algorithms. In my opinion, "midpoint" is a bit different,
having a character of down-conversion from interval
to floating point.
That said, if there is sufficient support for including
splits in the standard, I will certainly process such
motions in an unbiased way.
Best regards,
Baker
On 03/25/2012 07:30 AM, Arnold Neumaier wrote:
On 03/23/2012 06:37 PM, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:24:59 +0100
From: Arnold Neumaier<Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Kreinovich, Vladik"<vladik@xxxxxxxx>
CC: 'Dan Zuras Intervals'<intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"<stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: John's asinh split versus convert-to-sortable...
On 03/22/2012 10:06 PM, Kreinovich, Vladik wrote:
.
.
.
I mention this as I think that none of these splits should belong to a standard, because how to split is a matter of algorithm design and not one of standard behavior. Any particular choice will be artificial - a very bad sign for something
that should become standard.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------