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

Re: Motion P1788/M0036.03: NO Flavors



John Pryce a écrit :
Dominique

On 29 Aug 2012, at 16:37, Dominique Lohez wrote:
J. Wolff von Gudenberg a écrit :
I vote NO on motion 36 flavors.

I appreciate very much the way how John is trying to keep everybody aboard.
I like the idea of getting a better enclosure by modal arithmetic
I see the importance of Kaucher intervals in algebraic extensions

BUT

We are preparing a standard, which should (and will) be progressive.
As a standard P1788 has to fix or prescribe the rules for One flavor of intervals
and NOT open up new alternatives.

I    completely agree with the statement  that we must not build  a standard with alternatives.

I completely reject this line of argument. It's like saying IEEE754 should not have the "alternatives" of binary and decimal arithmetic.
John,

IMHO the right comparison would between natural numbers and relative number.
This hold because new result can be obtained as shown by Nate.
Then you do not have to build alternative between natural number and relative numbers

Dominique LOHEZ
In fact the comparison seems to me to be very close. Binary and decimal are the two "flavors" of 754 arithmetic!

If you say "the interval flavor concept is premature, we haven't time to validate it", that's a valid argument (though I disagree).

If you say "90% of interval workers use set-based intervals so standardise on that", that's a valid argument too, though if you asked where 90% of dollars earned by interval algorithms came from, the answer would likely be different, as we know.

But to say a standard should not cater for alternatives simply doesn't hold water.

John Pryce




--
Dr Dominique LOHEZ
ISEN
41, Bd Vauban
F59046 LILLE
France

Phone : +33 (0)3 20 30 40 71
Email: Dominique.Lohez@xxxxxxx