INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3   
   REPLYADDR ldo@nz.invalid   
   REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP   
   MSGID:  eed55f88   
   REPLY:  e02d0864   
   PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
   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)   
   SEEN-BY: 19/38 90/1 105/81 106/201 129/305 153/757 7715 218/700 840   
   SEEN-BY: 220/70 226/17 30 100 227/114 229/110 111 114 200 206 300   
   SEEN-BY: 229/317 400 426 428 470 550 616 664 700 266/512 267/800 282/1038   
   SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 310/31 320/219 322/757 342/200 396/45 460/58   
   SEEN-BY: 633/280 281 412 418 420 509 2744 712/848 770/1 3 100 330   
   SEEN-BY: 770/340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 5075/35   
   PATH: 770/3 1 633/280 229/426