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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf