Re: Motion 52: final "Expressions" text for vote
Vincent,
> In general, this should remain true for NaI. IMHO, the cases for
> which this is not true should be listed.
In current draft, this is not true.
inf([NaI]) = NaN
inf(intervalPart([NaI])) = inf([Empty]) = +inf
convexHull([0,1]_com,[NaI])=[NaI]
convexHull(intervalPart([0,1]_com,intervalPart([NaI]))=convexHull([0,1],[Empty])=[0,1]
What do you mean by "this should remain true" ?
Do you want to change definition of inf, sup, convexHull ?
-Dima
----- Исходное сообщение -----
От: vincent@xxxxxxxxxx
Кому: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Отправленные: Пятница, 22 Ноябрь 2013 г 5:55:21 GMT +04:00 Абу-Даби, Маскат
Тема: Re: Motion 52: final "Expressions" text for vote
On 2013-11-19 06:39:21 -0800, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
> John,
>
> Section 6.4 still says:
> > The standard requires that at Level 2, for all interval types, operations and inputs, the inter-
> > val part of a decorated interval operation equal the corresponding bare interval operation.
>
> My opinion is that "for all inputs" quantifier should be more specific:
> <<<
> The standard requires that at Level 2, for all interval types, operations and inputs(other than NaI), the inter-
> val part of a decorated interval operation equal the corresponding bare interval operation.
> >>>
In general, this should remain true for NaI. IMHO, the cases for
which this is not true should be listed.
--
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)