On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Павел Кудан
Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:16:19 +0100 от "Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg" < thijs@sitmo.com>:
OK, but that is enough to conclude that [-inf, inf] IS( [-inf, -1] U
[1, inf]) is not true and this operator returns not correct result, no matter is the way it corrupts own result documented or not.
No, you are wrong here again, you claim so much but demonstrate nothing. You seem to lack the ability to reason precisely and mix up set theory with numerical interval computations.
You should stick to pen and paper math, learn about logical inference
(A and NOT(A))->proves the earth is flat
,lean about numerical representation theory (like floats) and don't touch a computer or post in forums until you do that!
What in your opinion is the value of "d" in the following statement?
double d=1/3;
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
I would like you say me first that you really think that [-inf, inf] IS EMPTY, as I asked first.
But, still, OK, double d=1/3 will contain a result of int operator/ as values you are dividing are int. So what? Next question you will ask will be a result of 'double d=1%3;' ???!
Since we are discussin boost interval, I'm going to use that definition of interval and not some irrelevant set theoretical definition. [-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. Don't you dare returning with a non-boost interval definition interval argument! (something involving set theory, multi-interval arguments, or Banach–Tarski )