Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
To: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:18:46 -0500
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>

It seems to me that the real question here is, should there
be a RFC-2119 type RFC to define mathematical terms ?

Otherwise this thread is unlikely to do much to change the
situation.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

On Feb 21, 2006, at 4:07 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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