From: Pancho.Jones@proton.me   
      
   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: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)