Re: Motion M006.01: YES

[Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg <wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

my vote is YES

Jürgen

Am 03.11.2016 um 18:47 schrieb Dmitry Nadezhin:

Dear Colleagues,

My vote is Yes.

Best Regards,
  -Dima

----- Original Message -----
From: Nathalie.Revol@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Nathalie.Revol@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:49:27 PM GMT +03:00 Iraq
Subject: Re: Motion M006.01: woting period begins, until November 9


Dear Colleagues,

thank you to Vincent and Dima for having clarified and improved the text of Motion M006.01.
The voting period, on the modified text (attached to this message) begins now and closes
on November 9.

Best regards
	Nathalie

On 09 Oct 2016, at 18:48, Dmitry Nadezhin <Dmitry.Nadezhin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Vincent and wg1788,

I changed "difficult" to "accuracy-relaxed".

I failed to formulate concisely your suggestion.
Instead I added such a requirement.
If the result of textToInterval(s) constructor is wider than
the hull of Level 1 value of s then exception shall be signaled.
So application is warned about relaxed accuracy of implementation.

The modified text is in the attachment.

 -Dima

----- Original Message -----
From: vincent@xxxxxxxxxx
To: stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 5:32:47 PM GMT +03:00 Iraq
Subject: Re: Motion M006.01: discussion period begins, until October 17

On 2016-10-05 08:39:34 -0700, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:

Vincent,

I don't like the word "difficult" in this context, because it
may not actually be difficult. I would rather use a word like
"advanced" / "enhanced" / "extended".

Do you like a word "accuracy-relaxed string" ?

This is beter, IMHO.

In §6.7.5, I would replace "any interval" by constraints obtained
with a basic algorithm to have a reasonable behavior, such as:

I think that there was an error in (2). It was:

2. If L < U, then return the hull of x.

It should be like (4), i.e. one should have:

2. If l <= u, return any interval I such that
  [l,u] included in I included in hull(L,U).

The only difference is that this is a bit relaxed with rational
literal bounds. But since L < U implies l <= u (used in (4)),
one can remove (2) entirely. I hope that this is now correct.

I like your suggestion about L and U.
What will your rules say about semi-infinite interval with rational
bound like "[p/q, +inf]" ?

This should be similar to the corrected (2) and (4) where U = [l,+oo).

I think that U is not relevant here and it should return I such that
[p/q, +oo) included in I include in [hull(hull(p)/hull(q)), +oo).

I suppose that you meant: [inf(hull(hull(p)/hull(q))), +oo)

But saying that U = [l,+oo) is simpler and avoids a dependency on
the rules from (1).

-- 
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)
<level2a.pdf><P1788F_level2_B.tex>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Nathalie Revol                                                  INRIA Grenoble - Rhone Alpes
  LIP - projet AriC                                                tel: (33) 4 72 72 84 36
  Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon            fax: (33) 4 72 72 80 80
  69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France                     Nathalie.Revol@xxxxxxxxxxx
                               http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/nathalie.revol/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------