INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3   
   REPLYADDR Pancho.Jones@proton.me   
   REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP   
   MSGID:  0b30be4d   
   REPLY:  eed55f88   
   PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
   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)   
   SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 124/5016 129/305 153/757   
   SEEN-BY: 153/7715 218/0 1 601 700 840 870 930 220/70 221/1 6 360 226/17   
   SEEN-BY: 226/30 100 227/114 229/110 111 114 200 206 300 317 400 426   
   SEEN-BY: 229/428 470 550 616 664 700 240/1120 266/512 267/800 282/1038   
   SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 301/1 113 812 310/31 320/219 322/757 335/364   
   SEEN-BY: 341/66 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 3 100   
   SEEN-BY: 770/330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 1042 5075/35   
   PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 301/1 218/700 229/426