> Okay, that seems like a valid point, though I still disagree. I think
> that we have two levels of consistency here: consistency with the
> function and consistency with the concept of interval arithmetic. I
> think that in this case, the interval arithmetic requirement is more
> specific, so you should be consistent with having intervals.
>
Well, I guess this depends on your point of view. Robert B. and I
chatted about this thread when it started, and I think he convinced me
that the "right" point of view is that RIF is supposed to be a model
of \mathbb{R} that keeps track of errors for you -- that RIF is a
drop-in replacement for, say, RDF, and that it keeps track of
precision as you go. From this point of view, I think there's no
question of what the behavior of floor() should be.
On the other hand, if you're just thinking of intervals as
intrinsically interesting objects, maybe this isn't as natural? I
guess I can just put the ball back in your court: Jason, what do
intervals mean to you? ;)
-cc
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
