Re: Draft: P1788.1 Standard for Interval Arithmetic (Simplified)
- To: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk5287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Draft: P1788.1 Standard for Interval Arithmetic (Simplified)
- From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:16:08 +0200
- Cc: Walter Mascarenhas <walter.mascarenhas@xxxxxxxxx>, "Kreinovich, Vladik" <vladik@xxxxxxxx>, Oliver Heimlich <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ned Nedialkov <nedialk@xxxxxxxxxxx>, IEEEP1788a <stds-1788@xxxxxxxx>
- Delivered-to: mhonarc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <55EEC551.5060101@louisiana.edu>
- List-help: <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=STDS-1788>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG?body=INFO%20STDS-1788>
- List-owner: <mailto:STDS-1788-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
- List-subscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
- Mail-followup-to: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk5287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Walter Mascarenhas <walter.mascarenhas@xxxxxxxxx>, "Kreinovich, Vladik" <vladik@xxxxxxxx>, Oliver Heimlich <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ned Nedialkov <nedialk@xxxxxxxxxxx>, IEEEP1788a <stds-1788@xxxxxxxx>
- References: <CC24AB65-78C6-41E4-B985-80D06A8BC796@mcmaster.ca> <CADpdEtkjXxrwCQ59-vd+KehBNmcERiAxS9KtDLyegaA2AsT9gw@mail.gmail.com> <55EDF2B3.8010808@heimlich-online.net> <CADpdEtkuZ9=hfVTMMd7xnyTx05Kkg55WsGRh7Z12r1dbasyEYw@mail.gmail.com> <55EE62FD.3040607@heimlich-online.net> <49A1861CB3A6E84A95F43B695D2B5C381B4FF0E0@ITDSRVMAIL010.utep.edu> <CADpdEtkVecoGwUpUhJosFfCD5QD=rVYMT+S8YrNAMAWMHve6dg@mail.gmail.com> <55EEC551.5060101@louisiana.edu>
- Sender: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24-6504-vl-r81226 (2015-09-06)
On 2015-09-08 06:24:01 -0500, Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> I agree. A major purpose of the standard is to
> unambiguously define a particular behavior, especially
> in cases in which different behaviors seem reasonable
> for different reasons. That enables predictability
> and portability across platforms.
>
> Giving such an example
> would not change the normative part of the standard,
> but would definitely clarify it, and thus make
> it more valuable.
There was an example in Draft 8.1:
E.g., the common inputs for (the interval extension of) floor(x)
are all nonempty intervals that are disjoint from Z. Thus
floor([1, 1.9]) = [1, 1] is not common, because floor() is not
continuous at 1, despite its restriction to [1, 1.9] being
everywhere continuous. If it were required to be common, cset
arithmetic could not be a flavor.
but it disappeared in Draft 9.3.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)