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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf