From: ldo@nz.invalid   
      
   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: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)