RE: 'monotonic increasing'

["Gray, Eric" <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

	I'm sorry to disagree, but I feel that the term "monotonic" has
a much better defined meaning than most terms in general (including -
for example - the term "term").

	There are definitely applications for the phrase "monotonically
increasing" where the terminology is exactly correct and very hard to
"word-smith" around.

	There are also cases in which the appropriate phrase might have
been "strictly monotonically increasing", and for one reason or another
the word "strictly" was omitted.  In such cases, it either was clear
what was meant at the time, or it has become clear in the mean time.

	I really do not see why we need to get quite so retentive about
terminology when we have the ability to ask questions about anything
we don't understand completely.  Nor do I believe that there is any
way that we could avoid the need to ask questions strictly as a result
of using perfect terminology (or phraseology).

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Tom.Petch [mailto:[e-mail]] 
--> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:50 PM
--> To: ietf; Frank Ellermann
--> Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
--> 
--> ----- Original Message -----
--> From: "Frank Ellermann" <[e-mail]>
--> To: <[e-mail]>
--> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:57 PM
--> Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
--> 
--> > Marshall Eubanks wrote:
--> >
--> > > a RFC-2119 type RFC to define mathematical terms ?
--> >
--> > Maybe more like some glossaries (Internet, security,
--> > I18N, ...), informational RFCs.  But I think that's
--> > unnecessary.  There are online math. dictionaries,
--> > authors can provide references for unlear terms, or
--> > say what they mean.
--> >
--> > > Otherwise this thread is unlikely to do much to
--> > > change the situation.
--> >
--> > It highlights why "clear" terms in RFC are good,
--> > defined by reference or inline.  In some groups
--> > saying 'header' instead of 'header field', 'byte'
--> > instead of 'octet', or 'charset' instead of IIRC
--> > 'encoded character repertoire' is enough to start
--> > a thread.  And 'monotonic increasing' instead of
--> > 'strictly (monotonic) increasing' is apparently a
--> > similar issue.
--> >                       Bye, Frank
--> >
--> 
--> What I see from this thread is that there are two common 
--> interpretations to
--> the phrase 'monotonic increasing', either a sequence in 
--> which each number is
--> greater than or equal to its predecessor, or one in which 
--> each number is
--> strictly greater than its predecessor, with the former 
--> meaning having somewhat
--> the greater support (at least amongst those with access to 
--> text books): which,
--> of itself, makes it a risky term to use in a specification.
--> 
--> I still think that it is sometimes used in RFC and I-D in a
--> third sense, of a sequence of integers increasing by one 
--> each time, not a
--> meaning anyone has supported. But only the editor can know 
--> what is really
--> intended.
--> 
--> So, the next time I see it used, perhaps in a Last Call of 
--> a pkix, kink or secsh
--> I-D, I will seek further clarification.
--> 
--> Tom Petch
--> 
--> 
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> [e-mail]
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf