Subject: Semantics

From: "Michael Duren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:46:34 -0400

Denis,
 
In looking at the TSP specification, I have one observation.
 
In section 2.1 of the document, it is stated that the serial number shall be "a monotonically incrementing integer for each newly generated time stamp token".  However, in section 2.4.2 when the meaning and the usage of the serial number is discussed, it is referred to as "a strictly monotonically increasing integer."
 
My understanding is that "monotonically increasing" values can be equal (i.e. the time value is monotonically increasing) and "strictly increasing" values cannot have equal values.  I am not sure what "strictly monotonically increasing" implies.  Seems to me that the serial number should be referred to as "strictly increasing" or "unique and monotonically increasing" in both places.
 
Any comments?

Mike Duren

---

From: Tony Bartoletti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:55:30 -0700

At 04:46 PM 10/22/99 -0400, Michael Duren wrote: 

<excerpt><smaller>Denis,

</smaller>  

<smaller>In looking at the TSP specification, I have one observation.

</smaller>  

<smaller>In section 2.1 of the document, it is stated that the serial
number shall be "a monotonically incrementing integer for each newly
generated time stamp token".  However, in section 2.4.2 when the meaning
and the usage of the serial number is discussed, it is referred to as "a
strictly monotonically increasing integer."

</smaller>  

<smaller>My understanding is that "monotonically increasing" values can
be equal (i.e. the time value is monotonically increasing) and "strictly
increasing" values cannot have equal values.  I am not sure what
"strictly monotonically increasing" implies.  Seems to me that the serial
number should be referred to as "strictly increasing" or "unique and
monotonically increasing" in both places.

</smaller>  

<smaller>Any comments?

</smaller>  

<smaller>Mike Duren

</smaller>  

</excerpt><<<<<<<<

"Strictly" speaking, you are correct.

The sequence <<2,5,7,7,7,9> is monotonically increasing because it never
decreases.

Uniqueness (1-to-1 mapping) requires a "strictly increasing" (or
decreasing) seq.

___tony___ (Hey, that MS in math finally paid off!)

Tony Bartoletti                                             LL

IOWA Center                                              LL LL

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory                LL LL LL

PO Box 808, L - 089                                   LL LL LL

Livermore, CA 94551-9900                              LL LL LLLLLLLL

phone: 925-422-3881   fax: 925-423-8081               LL LLLLLLLL

email: [email-masked]                                   LLLLLLLL

---

From: Paul Koning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 18:09:47 -0400

>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Bartoletti <[email-masked]> writes:

 Tony> At 04:46 PM 10/22/99 -0400, Michael Duren wrote:

 Mike> Denis,
  
 Mike> In looking at the TSP specification, I have one observation.
  
 Mike> In section 2.1 of the document, it is stated that the serial
 Mike> number shall be "a monotonically incrementing integer for each
 Mike> newly generated time stamp token".  However, in section 2.4.2
 Mike> when the meaning and the usage of the serial number is
 Mike> discussed, it is referred to as "a strictly monotonically
 Mike> increasing integer."
  
 Mike> My understanding is that "monotonically increasing" values can
 Mike> be equal (i.e. the time value is monotonically increasing) and
 Mike> "strictly increasing" values cannot have equal values.  I am
 Mike> not sure what "strictly monotonically increasing" implies.
 Mike> Seems to me that the serial number should be referred to as
 Mike> "strictly increasing" or "unique and monotonically increasing"
 Mike> in both places.
  
 Mike> Any comments?
  
 Mike> Mike Duren

 Tony> "Strictly" speaking, you are correct.

 Tony> The sequence <2,5,7,7,7,9> is monotonically increasing because
 Tony> it never decreases.

 Tony> Uniqueness (1-to-1 mapping) requires a "strictly increasing"
 Tony> (or decreasing) seq.

That doesn't match the terminology I'm familiar with.

2,5,7,7,7... is "monotonically non-decreasing" but it is not
"monotonically increasing".

But given that there appear to be differing interpretations of the
terminology, it would be best not to use these ambiguous technical
terms but rather describe in plain english what the required property
is (i.e., "each value must be > than its predecessor" or "each value
must be >= its predecessor" depending on which is wanted).

	paul