Re: comments on flavors
Jürgen
Thanks for your comments, I'm working on them now, sorry for the delay.
On 2 Oct 2012, at 10:32, Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote:
> Now some comments to the draft text
> 2.1 2nd paragraph line 2 "is a set of reals" add "connected"
I'ld rather not. Here, I'm trying to emphasise the difference in approach between "the set of numbers between two bounds" and "just a pair of bounds".
I see the "closed connected subset of R" definition is in the definitions (3.2.10) but NOT (!) currently in the main place 7.2. I've inserted it there.
> 2.1 3rd para delete the last sentence
OK that may be OTT but I want to say something of why we consider Kaucher. How about "At the time of writing it finds commercial application in the graphics rendering industry."
> 2.1 6th para change "more accessible" by "always accessible"
Actually why have the accessible phrase? How about just "on the grounds that it is relatively easy to grasp, ... applications"?
> 2.1 last 2 paras delete quotations of cset model
Well, I introduce it suddenly which makes it a bit confusing. But I want to make the point that there are lots of models
- objects: sets vs. not-sets
unbounded & empty allowed?
- operations: algebraic vs. topological
and we've chosen a fairly simple model.
> 5.1 If we decide to make classical a flavor, a table of operations belongs to this section
I suppose. But no one is calling for that so far.
> 5.5 the decoration "com"
> in the set-based flavor we have the decoration"dac" what means defined and continuous. together with information on overflow we have "com"
Yes. What do you think:
- We should have both dac and com.
- We should have dac but not com.
- We should have com but not dac.
John