Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2006
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2006

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Interval[{a,b}]-Interval[{a,b}] = 0?

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg66637] Re: Interval[{a,b}]-Interval[{a,b}] = 0?
  • From: "Richard Fateman" <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu>
  • Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 02:58:01 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <e510r2$8eg$1@smc.vnet.net> <e514do$96v$1@smc.vnet.net>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

I'm sorry I was not clear in my original note, since several people
seem to think I was objecting to  [-1,1] - [-1,1] simplifying to [-2,2].
This is universally agreed to be correct in the "reliable computing"
community, for the reason given by Johan, and I certainly
agree with it.

What is likely to be a bug, in my view, is the treatment of
Interval[{a,b}]-Interval[{a,b}] , and I was just wondering if
anyone could defend  simplifying it to 0 as a feature.

The closest I got was a suggestion that  "this is not the right tool".

One correct answer might be to leave it alone.   or maybe
after ascertaining that   a,b are real and a<=b , the interval [-2*a,2*b].

The answer 0 not only is wrong, but apparently leads to bugs
in Limit computations, where Interval notation is used /abused.

"Johan Grönqvist" <johan.gronqvist at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e514do$96v$1 at smc.vnet.net...

.... snipped...   explanation of [-1,1]-[-1,1]=[-2,2] 


  • Prev by Date: Re: M100: An Introduction To Mathematica
  • Next by Date: Re: Interval[{a,b}]-Interval[{a,b}] = 0?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Interval[{a,b}]-Interval[{a,b}] = 0?
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Interval[{a,b}]-Interval[{a,b}] = 0?