P1788: PLEASE VOTE - M0062: Accept the document

["Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

P1788,

Voting currently is underway on Motion M0062: Accept the document.  Voting ends on Monday, June 23.

Current tally: Yes - 26; No - 0; Required for quorum - 29.

PLEASE VOTE.

George Corliss,
P1788 Voting Tabulator


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk5287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Correction [P1788] Motion P-1788/M0000: Accept TheDocument -- Voting begins
> Date: June 10, 2014 at 8:56:23 AM CDT
> To: John Pryce <PryceJD1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stds-1788 <STDS-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> P-1788:
> 
> We have previously called for this as a friendly amendment,
> and have heard no objections so far.  Please voice
> any objections (prompting a re-vote) before the end
> of the voting period.
> 
> Baker
> 
> On 06/10/2014 04:48 AM, John Pryce wrote:
>> Vladik, P1788
>> 
>> I accept the following as a friendly amendment, see comments
> below. Changes have been made jointly by Ned Nedialkov, who is
> visiting me, and myself.
>> 
>> Revised text, now called version 9.3, is attached.
>> 
>> John Pryce
>> ==================================================
>> On 2 Jun 2014, at 21:37, Kreinovich, Vladik wrote:
>>> June 2, 2014
>>> 
>>> In general, I vote For.
>>> 
>>> Many many thanks to the editors, especially to John Pryce, and to
>>> all the folks who nit-picked the text. It reads very well.
>>> 
>>> I have a few minor editorial suggestions, which will hopefully make
>>> the text slightly easier to read for folks outside our standard
>>> community (some of them are also related to the difference between
>>> the British and US English).
>>> 
>>> p. iv, third bullet item: the word "algebraic" is used here -- and
>>> in general in our community -- as indicating that we have a
>>> composition of basic functions; in this sense, since, for example,
>>> sin(x) is a basic function, this function is algebraic in this
>>> sense. To a mathematicians, however, the notion of an algebraic
>>> function has a different meaning: it is a function which is a
>>> solution of a polynomial equation. From this viewpoint, a
>>> polynomial or a square root are algebraic functions, while sin(x)
>>> is not. I suggest deleting the word "algebraic" here, to avoid
>>> confusion.
>> OK
>> 
>>> p. iv, section titled "The Fundamental Theorem", paragraph 1, last
>>> line: we are so accustomed to the word "enclosure" but this word is
>>> rarely used in mathematics outside our community, it may be
>>> confusing without an explanation. Maybe explain instead of using
>>> this word, e.g., "is guaranteed to produce a set that contains the
>>> range of ..."
>> OK
>> 
>>> p. v, line 3: space missing before reference [9]
>> OK
>> 
>>> item (2), line 1: add "whether" after "check"; this may be British
>>> English vs. US one :-), but I hope adding the word "whether" will
>>> make it clearer
>> OK
>> 
>>> p. v, last paragraph, line 3: add a dash between IEEE and 754, as
>>> is done in previous mentions of this standard
>> OK, also a fewer other places
>> 
>>> p. 1, first paragraph, last line: "owner" here is a slang word, may
>>> be confusing with material ownership (like owners of copyright;
>>> academic reviewers will be appalled that we consulted with owners
>>> and not with developers). Maybe "developers"? "developers and
>>> maintainers"?
>> The latter
>> 
>>> p. 1, Section 1.2, last line: replace semicolon before "ability" by
>>> a comma, since this is a continuation of a description of what is
>>> lacking, not a new item
>> Ugh, horrid. Changed ";" to ", and".
>> 
>>> p. 2, Section 1.8, line 2: "von Neumann languages" is not a
>>> frequently used term; computer science folks use "procedural
>>> languages", maybe we should explain what it means; this is the
>>> first time I hear this term, although Wikipedia proves that it is
>>> legit: languages which are adjusted for von Neumann architecture
>> I agree with Ian McIntosh's comment; changed to "procedural" which seems more precise here.
>> 
>>> p. 4, Section 3.1, second paragraph, line 1: "after" is a confusing
>>> Britishism; a US reader may mistakenly interpret this as "at a
>>> later moment of time"; better something like "in accordance with"
>> Maybe a Germanism from Christian, as "nach" has both meanings? Changed to "Conformance requirements in this standard follow the guidelines ..."
>> Is that OK?
>> 
>>> paragraph 4, last line, and throughout the text: it is better to
>>> repeat the paragraph sign (as it is done later in Section 3.2), or
>>> write two paragraph signs followed by "8 and 9"; same comment: last
>>> line of the last bullet item on p. 4
>> You are probably right. Done globally by changing the \scrf and \ssrf macros.
>> 
>>> paragraph -2, last phrase, I would suggest adding "that" after
>>> "implies" and placing a colon after "Note", to make it clearer to
>>> US readers
>> Either "that" or colon, not both. I chose "that".
>> 
>>> p. 5, Section 3.2.2, first bullet item: "enquiry" is a British
>>> spelling, may be unclear to many readers, US spelling is "inquiry"
>> OK. In Britain "enquiry" and "inquiry" have genuinely different meanings and "enquiry" would be the correct word. But US English doesn't make the distinction.
>> 
>>> p. 5, Section 3.3, centered description: since the words "Name of
>>> ... and version" are included in square brackets -- to indicate
>>> that these words have to be replaces by the actual wording -- why
>>> not add the same square brackets around the two other parts which
>>> have to be replaced?
>> Done. Christian is that OK?
>> 
>>> Section 3.4, (2)(d), line 2: this may be British vs. US, but I
>>> suggest replacing "includes how" with "includes: How", to make it
>>> clear that "includes" also covers the next question
>> OK. I used the style "includes: how ...? how ...?"
>> 
>>> general comment: to make it clearer, instead of "see paragraph
>>> 13.4?" which sounds like "shall we see this paragraph?" better
>>> "text representations? (see paragraph 13.4). Same for all other
>>> similarly formulated questions
>> Done, I think.
>> 
>>> (3) (k): also add paragraph sign before 13.3
>> OK
>> 
>>> p. 8, Section 4.2.13, line 2: replace "they" with "the types";
>>> reason: "they" usually refers to the last mentioned, here last
>>> mentioned are sets not types
>> OK
>> 
>>> p. 9, Section 4.2.30, this is explained later, but now it sounds as
>>> if everywhere defined functions are now allowed; maybe something
>> -------------------------------------^"not"?
>>> like "functions (possibly partially defined)"
>> OK
>> 
>>> Section 4.2.40 and throughout the text: the notation R^0 is not
>>> clear; in programming languages, we have indeed empty tuples, but
>>> in mathematics, I am not even sure what it means, I do not remember
>>> seeing it before, and I am still puzzled what is the precise
>>> mathematical meaning of this is set theory; this needs to be
>>> clarified. One possible clarification may come from the fact that
>>> A^B in set theory also means the set of all the functions from B to
>>> A. This is somewhat consistent with the usual Cartesian product
>>> notation X^2 for the set of pairs, if we interpret 2 (as in
>>> foundations of set theory) as the set consisting of two elements 0
>>> and 1, then functions from {0,1} to X are simply pairs of elements
>>> of X. From this viewpoint, 0 is an empty set. However, since 0 is
>>> an empty set, X^0 makes no sense.
>>> 
>>> Maybe explicitly mention that by X^0, we will denote a 1-element
>>> set consisting of a special object called an empty tuple.
>> 
>> I have added text to 6.1, as a Note in item 1 (these are copied & pasted from the PDF, and edited where plain text can't represent it):
>> :>>>>
>>> [Note. Various formal set-theoretic foundations exist. Where relevant, this document uses a model where the notion of ordered pair (x, y) is a primitive; a cartesian product of X × Y of two sets is the set of all (x, y) with x ∈ X, y ∈ Y ; a function is formally identical with its graph, the set { (x, f (x)) | x ∈ Dom f } ⊆ X × Y .
>>> Then (X×Y)×Z is shortened to X×Y ×Z and its elements ((x,y),z) to (x,y,z), and so on inductively to define X1×X2×···×Xn with elements (x_1,...,x_n) (called “tuples” or “vectors”). This product may be identified with (but formally is different from) the set of all maps x defined on {1,2,...,n} and such that x(i) ∈ X_i for each i; and x_i is an alternative notation for x(i).]
>> :<<<<
>> 
>> and a new item 3:
>> :>>>>
>>> Meaning of R^0. A cartesian power X^n means X × ··· × X (n times). Take X = R. As noted in item 1, R^n may be identified with the set of all maps x from the index set {1,2,...,n} to R, equivalently of all tuples (x1,...,xn) of reals. Extended to the case n = 0, R^0 is the set of maps x from the empty index set to R; the only such map has as its graph the empty set of pairs (i,x_i). In this interpretation, R^0 is the singleton set {∅} whose only member is ∅. In the linear algebra interpretation, R^0 is the (unique up to isomorphism) 0-dimensional real linear space, whose one member is usually called 0. In the tuple interpretation, it is the set whose only member is the empty tuple ().
>> :<<<<
>> Does that help?
>> 
>>> p. 14, Section 6.3, pown() is mentioned but never explained, it is
>>> only explained on p. 17, explain it here
>> 
>> Explained now in a footnote on p. 15.
>> 
>>> p. 18 and throughout the text: to a mathematician, the notation
>>> "dx" may be confusing, especially since in linearization-based
>>> techniques, differentials are actually used; maybe Dx or d(x)? or
>>> at least explain in a footnote that this is NOT a differential?
>> 
>> Now explained in a footnote to 7.5.1 which is referred to in 8.2; repeated in running text of 11.2.
>> 
>>> p. 21, Section 8.1, paragraph -4 (which is all in italics), line 2:
>>> delete the word "result", it may be confusing since "result"
>>> without qualifiers usually refers to the final outcome of the
>>> computations, while here we talk about intermediate results
>> 
>> Deleted
>> 
>>> last paragraph of Section 8.1, Example, line 1: I suggest adding
>>> "that" after "specify" -- or "the" before "execution" and "to"
>>> after it, to make it clearer
>> 
>> "that" added
>> 
>>> p. 24, Section 9.4, second bullet, add paragraph sign before 12.11
>> 
>> Added
>> 
>>> p. 28, Section 10.2, line 2: Cartesian is usually capitalized, see
>>> Wikipedia
>> 
>> See footnote on p. 7.
>> 
>>> p. 29, Section 10.5, first paragraph, last line, add "operations"
>>> after "these", to make the text easier to read
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> second paragraph, replace "any" (possibly meaning all?) with "a"
>>> and add "programming" before "language", to make it clearer
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> Section 10.5.2: replace "value" with "values", otherwise it may be
>>> confusingly implying that the two functions have the same value --
>>> and then the reader will have to go back and re-read it after
>>> seeing "respectively"
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> p. 30, last bullet of Section 10.5.5: delete comma after E. in E.g.
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> p. 31, Section 10.5.7, first paragraph, add ~ between "and" and
>>> "y", to avoid "y" appearing as the only symbol on the second line
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> p. 31, Section 10.5.8, second paragraph, make [l,u]={... in double
>>> dollar signs, to avoid it being split inside the set description
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> p. 37, Section 11.1: add paragraph signs before 11.3, 11.4, and
>>> 11.6
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> 
>>> p. 46, Section 12.4, second bullet: "both" may be confusing, better
>>> something like "all three zero values"
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> p. 47, Section 12.6.1, second paragraph, replace "one" with "an
>>> implementation", for clarity; also, replace "in the next" with
>>> "described in the next"
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> p. 50, Notes at the end of Section 12.10.1, last paragraph: "ulp"
>>> is only defined later, so maybe place here a reference to the
>>> corresponding paragraph 12.11.3
>> 
>> Reference made
>> 
>>> 
>>> p. 51, Section 12.11.2 (a): instead of a somewhat confusing "-
>>> sign", better "minus sign --", especially since that minus is in
>>> different font from the actual minus later on the page; same with
>>> (c)
>> 
>> I prefer to keep the \tt font but have revised the references to signs.
>> 
>>> 
>>> p. 51, Section 12.11.4 (a) and (b): the description seems to be
>>> indicate that there should be space after [ and space after ], but
>>> no such space appears in the examples of p. 52, so maybe it is
>>> better to delete these spaces, e.g, replace "[ empty ]" with
>>> "[empty]", etc. ; same on p. 52, Section 12.11.5 (a)
>> 
>> Well, it does specify the meaning in last sentence of para 1 of 12.11.4. Hoping to make it clearer, I moved that sentence into item (a).
>> 
>>> p. 53, Section 12.11.6, paragraph -2, first line: add paragraph
>>> sign before 13.2
>> 
>> Done
>>> 
>>> p. 55, Section 12.12.7, second paragraph: what is former and what
>>> is latter? I am confused
>> 
>> Former means textToInterval, latter means numsToInterval. Changed to say that explicitly.
>> 
>>> p. 56, first and second of last two bullets: why not replace "not
>>> less" with a more widely used "greater than or equal to" and "not
>>> greater than" with "less than or equal to"? Even LaTeX notations
>>> are \ge and \le which indicates that these are indeed more widely
>>> used
>> 
>> Changed
>> 
>>> p. 57, Section 12.12.8: this is the only case when a minus-like
>>> dash indicating different bullet items appears directly in front of
>>> the formulas, making it somewhat confusing with minuses; maybe add
>>> the words "the expression" between the bullet sign and the symbols?
>>> or, in this particular case, make \item[$\bullet$] which will
>>> replace the minus-like signs with actual bullet signs?\
>> 
>> Now done without bullets
>> 
>>> it may also be a good idea to add "of the function inf(x)" after
>>> "value", to make it clearer
>> 
>> I think it is clear as it is.
>> 
>>> p. 60, Section 13.3, third line: replace dot before X with a
>>> semicolon, and add "here" before X, since this is a continuation of
>>> the previous phrase. Last line of this paragraph: add space before
>>> Section 12.11.
>> 
>> Done
>>> 
>>> p. 61, Section 13.4.1, line 2: the use of equality b = the radius
>>> is unusual and may be confusing, why not something like "the radix
>>> $b$, the number of digits in the significand (precision) $p$", etc.
>> 
>> Changed
>> 
>>> last line: somewhat confusing: I suggest replacing "difference that
>>> 754" by "difference: 754" and then, on the next page, "expansion.
>>> The" with "expansion, while the"
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> p. 63, Section 14.3, third paragraph: add paragraph sign before 6.5
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> p. 64, Section 14.4, third paragraph, line 2: there is an extra
>>> closing parenthesis at the end of the triple
>>> 
>>> Note at the end: add "that" after "imply"; I do not know what is
>>> "cohort information"
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> p. 65, Annex A, line 2: capitalize Clauses since they are numbered
>>> here
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> p. 68, Section B.1, paragraph titled "Constant functions", line 3:
>>> in the formula for the empty tuple, there should be space between
>>> opening and closing parentheses (as later on in the same section)
>> 
>> Added
>> 
>>> p. 69, line 1: replace (32, 33) with a more traditional (32) and
>>> (33)
>> 
>> Prefer to keep it (32, 33)
>> 
>>> same after formula (38): replace "(31, 32, 33)" with "(31), (32),
>>> and (33)"
>> 
>> Same
>> 
>>> p. 72, Section C2.2, last paragraph: the word "any" may be
>>> confusing, since "for any" is the same as "for all"; better "at
>>> least one"
>>> 
>>> p. 73, Section C2.4.1, first bullet: need to mention that we
>>> consider also partial functions; a mathematical function is usually
>>> everywhere defined
>> 
>> Replaced by "partial mathematical real function of real variables"
>>> 
>>> p. 80, Section C3.7.1, first line: move the word "and" to the
>>> previous line, there is space for it
>> 
>> Done
>>> 
>>> p. 82, Section C4.4: add ~ between Level and 2 (making it Level~2),
>>> to avoid moving 2 to the next line; same with Level 1 in the same
>>> section
>> 
>> Done
>> 
>>> p. 83, Section 4.6: same comment about minus sign and [ empty ] as
>>> for p. 51
>>> 
>>> p. 85, Section C4.7.5: same comment as for p. 57
>>> 
>>> also, in Section C4.7.6, the first line goes beyond the margin
>> 
>> Fixed
>> 
>>> p. 89, references:
>> There are still a couple of things we are uncertain of here.
>> 
>>> Kulisch, either delete "vol. 33" or explain what series it is a
>>> volume of, otherwise, it sounds like Vol. 33 of Kulisch's book
>> 
>> Deleted, but is it actually part of a book series?
>> 
>>> Moore's book: since everywhere else the city is not mentioned,
>>> delete the city, keep only the publisher; maybe also add the 2009
>>> second edition?
>> 
>> Deleted
>> 
>>> Nehmeier et al: looks like 7134 a volume of the journal, but it is
>>> actually a volume of Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
>>> add this information
>> 
>> Please check, is the current ref correct? Ned couldn't locate a LNCS with a title like this.
>> 
>>> [13]: delete the ending "/main.html"; this was needed earlier when
>>> the web was not yet stabilized and different systems used different
>>> default endings; not it is not needed, the standard default ending
>>> is index.html; I keep the identical file main.html because some
>>> people still use the old URL :-(
>> 
>> Deleted
>> ==================================================
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail