Re: M0036.03 Flavors and standard invalidation
On 2012-09-07 19:42:47 +0200, Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
> Vincent, P1788
> a short comment or question, see below
> Juergen
>
> Am 07.09.2012 15:28, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> >On 2012-09-06 21:10:56 +0200, Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
> >>Now with flavors but also possible without, another kind of decorations
> >>indicating a state like "isKaucherInterval" enter the scene. I think they
> >>have to be recorded in addition to the operation based decoration. An
> >>interval is now a bare Interval and a set of decorations.
> >
> >This is a bit ambiguous. For the Kaucher interval [1,-1], there
> >are no corresponding bare intervals (except Empty). But the
>
> IMHO [1,-1] is a bare interval in the Kaucher flavor, or not?
Note that as soon as you have an improper Kaucher interval, you are
out of the scope of the current standard draft, which is about the
set-based flavor (such intervals cannot be constructed within the
current standard draft). They would just be an extension.
Proponents of Kaucher arithmetic should answer, but if you talk
of [1,-1] without decorations, I assume that it would be a bare
interval. However I'm not sure that working with bare intervals
really makes sense in Kaucher arithmetic, as some operations
would be undefined (e.g. 1 / [0,1]).
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)