Re: comments on flavors
Jürgen
On 2 Oct 2012, at 10:32, Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
> John, p1788
> after reading the flavor proposal carefully I still am not shure what will be its consequences. some comments, suggestions, questions. Let me start with 4 provocative postulates
>
> 1. the classical or common intervals are a flavor !
> will it be sufficient to only provide these ?
> 2. the set-based flavor is required !
> this is the result of our work.
> 3. the Kaucher flavor is optional
> 4. the cset flavor is not necessary
>
> my answers
> 1: yes but not sufficient
I agree, and no point requiring them as a separate flavor.
> 2. yes
Yes
> 3. if the kaucher subgroup will be ready in time, I would like to include it
Yes
> 4. i see no applications
But if someone sees applications let them submit a spec, and make an implementation. I just used csets in the motion as a "ferinstance".
>
> Sorry but I still think we should keep our number of flavors as small as possible.
I agree. Don't apologise. Any other flavors are way in the future.
There are some ill-defined parts of the flavors motion, of which the key one I think is
Does the Level 1 -> Level 2 map "hull" apply to *all*
intervals of a type, or only the common ones?
This has serious implications and we need a motion on it.
John