Subject: Re: [boost] boost interval arithmetic
From: ÐÐ°Ð²ÐµÐ» ÐÑÐ´Ð°Ð½ (coodan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-15 06:31:19
From mathematical point of view, of course. I does not try to estimate how much boost interval conflicts with own conception (although it does conflict - one politics for comparison and completely different for arithmetic). I am trying to show errors making whole boost interval obsolete in real interval applications. And what we are talking about (misconception in one of basic operators) is important thing of that kind. As without real applications, this class will be dead as unusable.
So I would like that you confess that statement [-inf, inf] IS EMPTY is obviously not correct from the point of view of mathematics. Really obvious thing. Please, tell, what is your opinion on this simple subject?
Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:21:20 +0100 Ð¾Ñ "Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg" <thijs_at_[hidden]>:
>> On 15 Jan 2015, at 12:04, ÐÐ°Ð²ÐµÐ» ÐÑÐ´Ð°Ð½ < coodan_at_[hidden] > wrote:
>> There is also another kind of misconception in description (and behaviour) of same /= operator of boost interval class.
>> I can prove it if you will agree that [-inf, inf] is not empty interval at any rate :)
>The meaning of [-inf,inf] as the interval in which the answer will be requires that there is an answer in the first place.
>You should no use a different definition other than the boost definition if you want to validate the boost implementation. If you don't then there is a bug in your way of thinking.
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk