Thread Links			Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Re: Motion 0035 -- New levels 1 and 1a

To: Arnold Neumaier <arnold.neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Motion 0035 -- New levels 1 and 1a
From: Michel Hack <mhack@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 10:53:33 -0400
Delivered-to: mhonarc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=STDS-1788>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG?body=INFO%20STDS-1788>
List-owner: <mailto:STDS-1788-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-subscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sender: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx

> If unbounded intervals are excluded from the standard, or replaced by
> intervals with a vague overflow bound, the standard will be useless for
> rigorous global optimization.

I know that, and you know that.  At this point I was not arguing against
the motion (which I will), just trying to clarify what was being proposed,
as Nate seems to think he's not taking anything away.

Michel.
---Sent: 2012-05-07 14:57:30 UTC

Prev by Date: Re: Exceptions vs NaN/NaI
Next by Date: overflow question
Previous by thread: Re: Motion 0035 -- New levels 1 and 1a
Next by thread: Re: Motion 0035 -- New levels 1 and 1a
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread