Re: Temporal database - no end date

On Jan 20, 2:05 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 5:56 pm, "-CELKO-" <jcelko..._at_earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>You don't really think that discrete salesmen and the time continuum
> >>are structurally alike, do you??
>
> > You don't really think that 64 bit ints and 64 bit floats are
> > structurally different, do you?
>
> > All of your continuum-based arguments are irrelevant to digital
> > computers; they can't handle a continuum anyway. There are
> > no irrational numbers reified anywhere in your computer's memory,
> > and there never will be.
> Unicode reifies the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its
> diameter as a symbol. That ratio is provably irrational. It is true the
> point amounts to a trifling semantic quibble. However, the nit opens you
> to pointless criticism and provides a foil by which the
> self-aggrandizing ignorant can elevate the image of his nonsense by
> comparison.

Well, pooh. "Reified" is the best term I've been able to come up with for the difference between a number represented algebraically and one spelled out as a binary quantity. Do you have a better one? (And in fact I could argue that your usage of the word is nonstandard.)

Marshall Received on Sat Jan 20 2007 - 08:47:27 CST