Re: 'monotonic increasing'
Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Tue, 21 February 2006 09:09 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBTW2-0008Uk-Lz; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:09:02 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBTW1-0008Ua-Cn for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:09:01 -0500
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBTW0-0001Ko-3N for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:09:01 -0500
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FBTVw-0001ge-Nx for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:08:56 +0100
Received: from 1cust158.tnt2.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.12.158]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:08:56 +0100
Received: from nobody by 1cust158.tnt2.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:08:56 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:07:29 +0100
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <43FAD851.26B0@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD3792AA21@MOU1WNEXMB04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust158.tnt2.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2
Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> I am pretty sure that if we started using the terms
> 'surjection', 'bijection' &ct. instead of 'one to one',
> 'one to many' we would end up with similar confusion.
Yes, but at least there's only one definition, unlike
"montonic increasing" with more common definitions. For
the case here replacing "monotonic" by "strictly" should
be good enough, otherwise add a (the) simple definition,
it's a one-liner.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- RE: 'monotonic increasing' Gray, Eric
- RE: 'monotonic increasing' Yaakov Stein
- Re: 'monotonic increasing' Tom.Petch
- RE: 'monotonic increasing' Yaakov Stein
- RE: 'monotonic increasing' Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: 'monotonic increasing' Gray, Eric
- Re: 'monotonic increasing' Frank Ellermann
- Re: 'monotonic increasing' Marshall Eubanks
- Re: 'monotonic increasing' Frank Ellermann
- Re: 'monotonic increasing' Tom.Petch