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

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