Re: Motion0036 Interval flavors: response to comments
John,
My comments are inserted bellows.
>> We are currently spending a lot of time
>> discussing of standardizing an exotique theory, of which different
>> experts have different formulations, different applications, etc. This
>> is clearly an evidence to me that this theory is not mature enough to
>> be standardized.
>
> Good point. But if Motion 36 passes, that's THEIR (the modal group's) problem.
I think you are too optimistic. In case I am right and the theory is
actually not mature enough, then you may receive a good looking text
that does not match your aims. Who will review the text, ask for
updates, review updates, eventually decide whether the text is
accepted or not, etc. ?
> [ibid.]
> Third, that "every thing that can be done using Kaucher intervals can
> also be done using standard intervals". Yes -- or using a universal
> Turing machine. The reason I take modal intervals seriously, hence
> proposed this motion, is that Nate argues on grounds of *efficiency*.
> He says that some algorithms that are key to the commercial
> competitiveness of Sunfish run many times faster with modal intervals
> than with ordinary ones. I don't believe everything Nate says (and he
> probably returns the compliment), but he has the experience of coding
> and using these methods extensively, so I believe him on this one.
When you ask me, I would prefer we go back to set theory ;-) When I
say that classical intervals do the same as modal intervals, they
actually do it in an easier and clearer way. Mr. Hayes proposes one
specific application that he has implemented where Kaucher intervals
seem to be quicker than classical intervals. It would make sense to
standardize Kaucher intervals if we think that many other applications
would benefit of Kaucher intervals. I don't think so, Arnold wrote a
long note on this topic, etc...
> [ibid.]
>> VERY HARD TO WRITE
>> - User point of view. Although it makes sense, the flavor proposal is
>> strongly increasing the complexity of the standard.
>
> Length yes. Complexity no, I believe. I now think the correct way to
> handle flavors is to have, at the "readable copy" level, *completely
> disjoint* documents for each flavor, with a common part of which a
> copy exists in each document, guaranteed to be identical (apart from,
> possibly, section numbering) because it is generated from shared
> source by a few LaTeX \input or \include commands in each document.
> (Hopefully just two, one for Level 1 and one for Level 2.)
>
> I think this is feasible with minor rearrangement of the current text,
> and aim to start studying this in the next few days.
>
> Anyone, if you see reasons why this cannot be done, PLEASE TELL US ASAP.
So basically two standards, one for classical intervals, and one for
Kaucher intervals, with common grounds. Although I cannot evaluate it,
the probability that IEEE does not like this is for sure nonzero. Do
we want to take a risk of the classical intervals standard being
rejected for including Kaucher intervals?
Alexandre
--
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