1. Forum
  2. FidoNet
  3. RBERRYPI

  • Re: Spontaneous locale change on Bookworm

    From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@3:770/3 to Pancho on Mon Sep 30 22:06:28 2024
    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:45:45 +0100, Pancho wrote:

    One assumes time is well ordered, so even if I don't know what the least century is, I know there was one.

    Integers are well ordered, but there is no least integer.

    All we want, I think, is a zero point far enough back that there is less real-world need to deal with negative time points.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Pancho@3:770/3 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Mon Sep 30 23:16:20 2024
    On 9/30/24 23:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:45:45 +0100, Pancho wrote:

    One assumes time is well ordered, so even if I don't know what the least
    century is, I know there was one.

    Integers are well ordered, but there is no least integer.


    No they aren't, precisely because the don't have a least integer.
    Perhaps you are confusing having a total ordering with well ordered?

    All we want, I think, is a zero point far enough back that there is less real-world need to deal with negative time points.

    That is basically what well-ordered implies. Obviously I was
    bullshitting as I have no idea if time is totally-ordered, let alone
    well ordered :-).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@3:770/3 to Pancho on Mon Sep 30 23:16:58 2024
    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 23:16:21 +0100, Pancho wrote:

    On 9/30/24 23:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:45:45 +0100, Pancho wrote:

    One assumes time is well ordered, so even if I don't know what the
    least century is, I know there was one.

    Integers are well ordered, but there is no least integer.


    No they aren't, precisely because the don't have a least integer.
    Perhaps you are confusing having a total ordering with well ordered?

    You were the one who used the term “well ordered”, and then said that, because of this, there had to be a least century.

    All we want, I think, is a zero point far enough back that there is
    less real-world need to deal with negative time points.

    That is basically what well-ordered implies. Obviously I was
    bullshitting as I have no idea if time is totally-ordered, let alone
    well ordered :-).

    Einstein’s Special Relativity says time is not totally ordered,
    unfortunately ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@3:770/3 to Pancho on Tue Oct 1 08:39:56 2024
    On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 09:34:09 +0100, Pancho wrote:

    The joke was meant to be that it is totally unreasonable to assume that
    time did start with the big bang and that it was a stupid special case anyway.

    Some think time may have started with the Big Bang, but there are hints
    that there may be, or have been, other Bangs, before, since, elsewhere, elsewhen.

    One thing is true: our Big Bang is the biggest single event to have
    happened in our little observable corner of the Universe over the entire timespan that we’re aware of. So it makes sense to use that, more than anything else, as our calendar reference for measuring all of time --
    certainly more sense than some fictional religious event that only has significance to one small part of our species. At least until we come up
    with a better one.

    “The Universe is such a fascinating place, don’t you think? I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else.”
    -- half-remembered quote from I don’t know where

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Pancho@3:770/3 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Tue Oct 1 09:34:08 2024
    On 10/1/24 00:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 23:16:21 +0100, Pancho wrote:

    On 9/30/24 23:06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 22:45:45 +0100, Pancho wrote:

    One assumes time is well ordered, so even if I don't know what the
    least century is, I know there was one.

    Integers are well ordered, but there is no least integer.


    No they aren't, precisely because the don't have a least integer.
    Perhaps you are confusing having a total ordering with well ordered?

    You were the one who used the term “well ordered”, and then said that, because of this, there had to be a least century.


    Well ordered is a text book definition, an important one in maths. Not a particularly "well" named one, as people do tend to confuse the meaning
    with total ordering. It should also be known in computer science, as the assumption that the positive integers are well ordered is equivalent to
    the assumption that induction works and induction is a similar concept
    to recursion.

    All we want, I think, is a zero point far enough back that there is
    less real-world need to deal with negative time points.

    That is basically what well-ordered implies. Obviously I was
    bullshitting as I have no idea if time is totally-ordered, let alone
    well ordered :-).

    Einstein’s Special Relativity says time is not totally ordered, unfortunately ...

    Well, possibly. In banking software we assumed time was totally ordered,
    (but times from different clocks wasn't). In GPS software I don't know.
    In general, given we are all terrestrial observers, I'm not sure
    relativity matters, when discussing centuries. I'm not a physicist.

    The joke was meant to be that it is totally unreasonable to assume that
    time did start with the big bang and that it was a stupid special case
    anyway.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Pancho on Tue Oct 1 13:31:44 2024
    On 30/09/2024 22:45, Pancho wrote:
    On 9/30/24 19:15, David Higton wrote:
    In message <vde54u$27ol9$2@dont-email.me>
               Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

    On 29/09/2024 09:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
    Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
    Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
    There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
    year 1. :-p

    So how many years are there in a century?  Does it depend on which
    century it is?

    No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or >>>> 100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).


    What about the century containing the Big Bang?

    Which century was that, then?

    David

    One assumes

    Arr. That be Metaphysics them, that be

    time is well ordered, so even if I don't know what the least
    century is, I know there was one.


    --
    Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to Pancho on Tue Oct 1 13:32:56 2024
    On 30/09/2024 22:48, Pancho wrote:
    On 9/30/24 14:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 30/09/2024 13:21, Pancho wrote:
    On 29/09/2024 09:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
    Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
    Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
    There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the
    year 1. :-p

    So how many years are there in a century?  Does it depend on
    which century it is?

    No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or >>>> 100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).


    What about the century containing the Big Bang?

    I dont think anyone was counting then

    Nonsense, lots going on in that first century. Particularly the first
    few minutes.


    What has that got to do with the fact that no one was counting, then?

    <https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html>

    --
    Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Pancho@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Tue Oct 1 16:09:14 2024
    On 10/1/24 13:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 30/09/2024 22:48, Pancho wrote:
    On 9/30/24 14:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 30/09/2024 13:21, Pancho wrote:
    On 29/09/2024 09:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
    Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
    Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
    There's no year zero. So the first century didn't start until the >>>>>>> year 1. :-p

    So how many years are there in a century?  Does it depend on
    which century it is?

    No, all one hundred years, from 100n+1 CE to 100(n+1) CE inclusive (or >>>>> 100(n+1) BCE to 100n+1 BCE inclusive).


    What about the century containing the Big Bang?

    I dont think anyone was counting then

    Nonsense, lots going on in that first century. Particularly the first
    few minutes.


    What has that got to do with the fact that no one was counting, then?

    <https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html>


    Well, no one was counting in year zero either, when baby Jesus was born. Otherwise they wouldn't have forgotten to put that year in a century. AD
    was devised in AD 525, I just looked it up.

    Hindu-Arabic numerals didn't make 0 explicit until much later, maybe
    11th century.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Tue Oct 1 21:33:06 2024
    On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 13:32:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    What has that got to do with the fact that no one was counting, then?

    Let’s just say, we have more evidence for what happened in the first few minutes of the Big Bang, then we have for any religious creation myth.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)