Re: Motion 31 draft text V04.4, extra notes

[Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2012-04-11 19:23:19 -0500, Nate Hayes wrote:
> My model is another option. Maybe you don't like it, but that's not a
> scientific argument it is invalid or doesn't exist.

Anyway your supposed model (we have never seen any full specification)
hasn't been chosen in the fist place. It is too late.

> >A math problem is always expressed at Level 1, not at Level 2.
> A computer program can never truly be expressed at Level 1, but it can at
> Level 2.

No, you're wrong (note: "expressed" != "implemented").

> >>>I've given an example in another mail.
> >>Where?
> >
> >The range of atan(1/x) over [0,1]. Could you give a complete proof
> >of the result with your axioms and definitions?
> You've already agreed [1,+OVR] as an infinite family of intervals contains
> 1/[0,1].

No, I disagree. A family of intervals doesn't contain anything.
Their union does. And the union is... an unbounded interval!

> Development of Kaucher arithmetic *requires* cancellation property!!!

The standard is not about the Kaucher arithmetic anyway.

> >BTW, cancellation is invalid at Level 2.
> I already pointed that out just the other day.

+ the fact that you do not want to work at Level 1, this makes it
useless.

-- 
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)