IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 'monotonic increasing'

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@point6.net> Fri, 17 February 2006 20:37 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1FACMS-0003O2-4Z; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:37:52 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1FACMQ-0003Nq-LD for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:37:50 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02673 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:36:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr ([192.44.77.17]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FACau-0007U1-HR for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:52:49 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/2004.10.03) with ESMTP id k1HKbeuG008572; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:37:40 +0100
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.29]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/2004.09.01) with ESMTP id k1HKbdkU008566; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:37:39 +0100
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k1HKbdd0040577; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:37:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr)
Message-Id: <200602172037.k1HKbdd0040577@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@point6.net>
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:34:21 +0100. <43F6172D.380D@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:37:39 +0100
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at enst-bretagne.fr
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   A "Dictionary of mathematics" offers both definitions, first
   what you found f(x) > f(y) for x > y.   Followed by the other
   definition f(x) >= f(y), where the first case would be called
   "strictly monotone".  I vaguely recall that "strict" (in the
   German version), it's not completely unusual.
   
=> in French we have the same thing: "monotone" is either
f(x) >= f(y) or f(x) <= f(y) for x > y and "strictement monotone"
is either f(x) > f(y) or f(x) < f(y) for x > y.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@point6.net

PS: the preliminary agenda for the next IETF is supposed to be published
today but is not yet on the IETF meeting page?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email