Re: Unbounded intervals
On 2012-04-26 08:41:12 -0500, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> On 04/26/2012 08:26 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >I don't think anyone wants the infinity to be part of an interval.
> >Nate wants to replace unbounded intervals by something else, but
> >this is unclear, as he said that this is equivalent to unbounded
> >intervals. So, I don't see the point of such a change.
>
> So, do I take it that there would be no consequence to how we
> actually end up defining the operations?
I fear that Nate's model would make definitions more complex
(I currently see it as redefining everything that is under the
concept of unbounded intervals by using only bounded intervals,
but there may be something else hidden...). His model has been
quite vague until now.
> >For the representation, using the infinity symbol is fine for me.
> >This is standard and well-known.
>
> Then, is it correct that the contention is merely describing
> how we think about it and what notation we use, and not what
> the actual operations will be?
I'm not sure.
--
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)