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

Re: Motion numbers?

George,

According to my accounting, your motion numbers are correct.
I am currently formally processing 52 and 53 -- relevant
postings from me will soon follow.

Baker

On 10/04/2013 07:27 AM, Corliss, George wrote:

P1788,

We have several motions in varying stages.  As we approach our deadline for completion, we surely will have more.  I suspect I am confused, and I might not be alone.

May I ask that each message try to be careful in the subject line and in the body to be clear (and correct) with the number and description of the motion the message refers to?

Here is where I think we are.  What am I missing?

M0050.01 EDP Without CA
     Voting ends TODAY.  Current tally: Yes - 11; No - 28; needed for quorum - 24
     Position paper
M0051.01 Interval and number literals
     Discussion ends 22 Oct.
M0052.01 Clause 6 "Expressions and the functions they define"
     Entering discussion
     Standard text
M0053.01 Accept new §9: Ops reqd in all flavors
     Awaiting second
     Position paper?

George Corliss

On Oct 4, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
  wrote:


On 2013-10-04 06:37:53 -0500, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:

P-1788:

Do I have a second to the appended motion?


I second.


(I have attached John's current version of the
P-1788 document, containing clause 6.)

Baker

On 10/03/2013 07:11 PM, John Pryce wrote:
.
.
.

To set the ball rolling I submit
Motion==============================================
Clause 6 "Expressions and the functions they define"
be accepted as standard text.
====================================================



I apologise that this means rejecting text that was accepted before
(motions 40, 41 I think) but there is good reason IMO.
See explanation below, which forms a mini-rationale.
.
.
.

- §6 Expressions. I had previously (re)written this with an informal
  definition of what an expression is, on the grounds that a formal
  defn would constrain a language, which is not 1788's job.
  Wolfram Kahl (McMaster) pointed out that "expression" as used in
  FTIA is nothing to do with a language - one could apply the FTIA to
  results of an interval program written in machine code, say.
  So rewritten again and with more precise definitions.

  Big change, so I think this needs a separate motion.


.
.
.


--
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)





--

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Baker Kearfott,   rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx   (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work)                     (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------