Re: Motion on interval flavors
Dear prof Kulisch,
> Kaucher or modal intervals are not really intervals.
> They are abstract entities.
Yes! The sitiation is exactly the same as real numbers.
Let me periphrase your words as follows:
"Real numbers are not really numbers. They are abstract entities."
I hope everybody agrees.
My question: Why such abstract entities - real numbers -
are mentioned in the IEEE standard for floating-point numbers?
Regards,
Svetoslav
On 6 Jul 2012 at 15:56, Ulrich Kulisch wrote:
Date sent: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 15:56:50 +0200
From: Ulrich Kulisch <ulrich.kulisch@xxxxxxx>
To: John Pryce <prycejd1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Copies to: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Motion on interval flavors
> Am 20.06.2012 07:49, schrieb John Pryce:
> > I'm not very happy with the name "set-based" intervals, but calling them
> > "standard" intervals is no longer appropriate, as well as clashing with the
> > main meaning we give to "standard" (as a noun and also an adjective). Any
> > better name welcomed.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > John Pryce
> >
>
> I see two kinds of set-based intervals, the closed and bounded intervals
> of IR and the closed intervals of \overline{IR}. What about calling the
> first cb-intervals and the second c-intervals.
>
> Kaucher or modal intervals are not really intervals. They are abstract
> entities. Why not calling them i-intervals for inverse or improper
> intervals or m-intervals.
>
> Best regards
> Ulrich
>
> --
> Karlsruher Institut f"ur Technologie (KIT)
> Institut f"ur Angewandte und Numerische Mathematik
> D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
> Prof. Ulrich Kulisch
>
> Telefon: +49 721 608-42680
> Fax: +49 721 608-46679
> E-Mail: ulrich.kulisch@xxxxxxx
> www.kit.edu
> www.math.kit.edu/ianm2/~kulisch/
>
> KIT - Universit"at des Landes Baden-W"urttemberg
> und nationales Grossforschungszentrum in der
> Helmholtz-Gesellschaft