Further friendly amendment to final text

[John Pryce <PryceJD1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

P1788

I have corrected minor errors and typos noted by Michel Hack on 17 June. 

I have also made a slightly larger change: Michel noted "Page 79, Note at the end of C3.5.2:  I *think*  we want FTIA -> FTDIA". This made me see that the text did not clearly distinguish the FTDIA from the FTIA, but such a distinction is useful. I have made what I think are sensible changes, which will be obvious when a "latexdiff" is done.

This FT(D)IA change affects how things are explained but does not change the substance except in one way: I've stated in §6.4 
> 
> In each flavor the decoration system *shall* make it possible, while evaluating an arithmetic expression, to determine that some sub-case of the FTIA holds. It *should* be supported by a Fundamental Theorem of Decorated Interval Arithmetic (FTDIA) stating that if evaluating an expression using decorated intervals returns a certain decoration d on the result, then the conditions for a corresponding FTIA sub-case are verified, hence the corresponding FTIA conclusion follows. 


This just makes explicit what was implicit before. However, it is technically a new requirement, so I guess I need to ask if anyone objects either to the substance of the change or the wording that expresses it. In particular there is one "shall", one "should". Should it be two "shall"s (two "should"s is pointless IMO)?

I circulate the resulting text, which is revision 369 on the SVN.

Christian, I guess a new requirement needs a new entry in §3. Can you do that and then circulate the "latexdiff"ed version? Baker, should we lengthen the discussion period by a day or two to handle this proposed change?

I've not had time to look at the latest discussion on the other outstanding issue of interchange representation.

John Pryce

Attachment: 20140621P1788_MAIN.pdf
Description: 20140621P1788_MAIN.pdf