Re: [boost] boost interval arithmetic

Subject: Re: [boost] boost interval arithmetic
From: Павел Кудан (coodan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-15 09:12:34

>Since we are discussin boost interval, I'm going to use that definition of
>interval and not some irrelevant set theoretical definition.
>
>Â [-inf, inf] thus means: a computation using boost intervals as arguments
>returned another boost interval, and thus the value must be somewhere in
>that interval.

If not certain result is good, you must also be ready to accept [-inf, inf] as a result of 2 + 2 operation.

As it is almost as exact as [-inf, inf] == [-inf, -1] U [1, inf]

In both cases we have some inclusion. The not important difference is [-inf, inf] is not 'smallest' for 2 + 2 result. But we all know that... that what? ... hmmmm, probably, that we all have some shortages. So let's forgive it as well as we are forgiving boost interval for its obvious misconceptions?

To be in interval and to be same interval is complete different things.

>
>Don't you dare returning with a non-boost interval definition interval
>argument!  (something involving set theory, multi-interval arguments, or
>Banach–Tarski )
My arguments are obvious, that is not my fault you are not going to lessen. That is strange.