> But just to be clear, if you saw a reference to 'monotonic increasing' in an American journal, > say of applied mathematics, would you be sure you understood what was meant? That would depend on the subject matter. If the article was on real analysis (where the domain is nondenumerable), then it would most probably mean >=. If the article's subject matter was "concrete mathematics" (i.e. discrete values) then "increasing" would probably mean > and only "nondecreasing" would mean >=. So in the case you raise, monotonic increasing would usually be strictly interpreted as x_n > x_n-1, and if you want to include the case where the sequence doesn't actually increase you should say "nondecreasing" . However, since the Godel failure of Principia Mathematica even mathematicians have lost faith in consistent definitions :> Y(J)S _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf