Re: Motion 52: final "Expressions" text for vote
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:15:00 -0800
> From: "G. William (Bill) Walster" <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Kreinovich, Vladik" <vladik@xxxxxxxx>, Michel Hack <mhack@xxxxxxx>,
> stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Motion 52: final "Expressions" text for vote
>
> Sure, Vladik.
>
> Any standard for how to implement computing with mathematically defined
> objects will be ambiguous unless the definition of the objects and the
> results of operations on, and functions of them are unambiguously
> defined. It has been clear, at least to me, from the outset that the
> current P1788 effort was doomed because such a mathematical foundation
> has yet to be developed. Such a foundation must be completely
> independent of any implementation considerations.
>
> Instead of concentrating on the mathematical foundation, what has been
> attempted is to define the mathematics and its implementation
> simultaneously. . . .
>
> A way to put computing with intervals on a solid mathematical foundation
> is to wait to consider implementation details, including language syntax
> and semantics, until the mathematical foundation for its implementation
> is published in "Mathematics of Computation."
>
> <http://www.ams.org/publications/journals/journalsframework/mcom>
>
> This is my motion and the reason for it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
Bill,
Have their not been publications over the years of various
ways to implement intervals? Can we not pick from one of them
as a basis for our standard. And I say 'basis' because there
are clearly other things people would like in their standard.
Yours,
Dan Zuras