Kearfott, R. B.R. B.KearfottNakao, M. T.M. T.NakaoNeumaier, S.S.NeumaierRump, S. M.S. M.RumpShary, S. P.S. P.SharyHentenryck, P. vanP. vanHentenryck2021-01-202021-01-202010Reliable Computing, 15(1):7–13, 2010http://hdl.handle.net/11420/8521Publications in interval analysis currently super from a multitude of incompatible notational styles. There are obvious advantages in having a standardized notation, especially for those peripheral to our field who only want to read an occasional paper to see whether the field offers something for the solution of their problems. It is important for the future of interval analysis to reach out to these colleagues; a standardized notation helps reduce the burden of learning new notation to a minimum. In much of mathematics, standardization happens automatically because people use the notation introduced by the first inuential papers on an issue. In interval analysis, this unfortunately did not happen. Worse, because there was no consensus in the past literature, new authors of work in interval analysis created their own notational habits, and produced further variants that added to the confusion. The time seems ripe to attempt to correct this unpleasant situation.en20101713nicht zu ermittelnMathematikJournal ArticleOther