Re: Do I have a second? Re: Bill's new motion

["G. William (Bill) Walster" <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Baker and John,

By "mathematically consistent" all I mean is that there are no 
inconsistencies in the form of contradictions, such as 1 = 2.

By "containment constraint" all I mean is that all defined results must 
be included in the returned interval of any mathematical expression or 
function evaluation.

I'll be happy to accept these clarifications, or others, as friendly 
amendments if necessary.

Cheers,

Bill


On 11/26/13 7:06 AM, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> P-1788,
>
> Do I have a second to this motion (appended, in Bill's
> email)?
>
>
> Baker
>
> P.S. This might be a topic of discussion, if this motion
>      is seconded, but I am wondering if the terms
>      "mathematically consistent" and "containment constraint"
>      would need to be made more precise.
>
> On 11/25/2013 04:35 PM, G. William (Bill) Walster wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> > Section 7 should state that in addition of any flavors described in the
> > standard, without restrictions, any mathematically consistent interval
> > system with a containment constraint and published in "Mathematics of
> > Computation" will also be a valid flavor in the standard.
> .
> .
> .