Re: overflow question
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Nate Hayes <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Alexandre Goldsztejn wrote:
>>
>> So, what is the point? Why introducing families of bounded intervals
>> to model one unbounded interval? Only for being able to justify at
>> Level 1a a definition of the midpoint? Anyway, the definition of the
>> midpoint of an unbounded interval is arbitrary, so your proposal tries
>> to justify something arbitrary, which is dangerous with many regards.
>
>
> The proposal does not define the midpoint of an unbounded interval; it
> allows the midpoint of an overflow family at Level 1a to be defined in the
> same manner and for the same reasons that P1788 has already discussed
> defining midpoint of an unbounded interval at Level 2.
>
> If such an idea is really so dangerous, P1788 should not define midpoint for
> unbounded intervals at Level 2 in the current model, either.
>
As I said previously, I personally see no problem if the midpoint is
undefined at Level 1 for unbounded intervals, but defined arbitrarily
at Level 2 after discussing the right choice (which could be Fmax or
anything else).
What I think is dangerous is to give an artificial mathematical
definition of the midpoint at Level 1a, because such a definition
would look non arbitrary while it is actually arbitrary.
Alexandre Goldsztejn
--
Dr. Alexandre Goldsztejn
CNRS - Laboratoire d'Informatique de Nantes Atlantique
Office : +33 2 51 12 58 37 Mobile : +33 6 78 04 94 87
Web: www.goldsztejn.com
Email: alexandre.goldsztejn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx