[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
last call for MIN and MAX
- To: rrrs-authors
- Subject: last call for MIN and MAX
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 21:19:45 PDT
Guy "I Haven't Had So Much Fun While Trying to Be Serious in Years" Steele:
....I think that
when you speak of "exactness-preserving" you mean "inexactness-preserving",
and similarly "perfect rules of exactness" => "perfect rules of
inexactness" which is then seen to be a contradiction in terms.
That just goes to show that a contradiction in terms isn't the same
as a contradiction. Exact numbers are like original works of art;
they're not worth much unless they can be distinguished from forgeries.
Inexactness-preserving procedures, which stamp potential forgeries,
are the primary means for preserving the worth of exact numbers.
They're not perfect, because of the predicates and INEXACT->EXACT.
Despite its occasionally apocalyptic tone, this whole argument has been
about whether the pathologies inherent in an inexactness-preserving MIN
and MAX justify adding two more loopholes.
I think everyone who wants to understand this issue probably does by now,
and I assume that anyone who hasn't voted doesn't care.