Re: Temporal database - no end date

On Jan 21, 2:17 pm, "DBMS_Plumber" <paul_geoffrey_br..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > Why can't we do the same for time? Why can't we "adopt as a unit
> > the notion of a [chronon], and make the assumption that quantities in
> > this 'unit' can be real numbers."
> By definition (DDL's explicitly, in this context), a chronon (and a
> quanta) is "indivisible".

Children are also indivisible. Not by definition, but by fact. And yet there is no problem with 2.3 children as a quantity.

> Besides - given your description, what does"chronon" add?
> Just use the units.

Fine.

So: Why can't we "adopt as a unit the notion of [some unit of time], and make the assumption that quantities in this 'unit' can be real numbers."

Is your position at this point purely a response to the Lorentzos book? You made some rather unqualified claims earlier.

Marshall Received on Sun Jan 21 2007 - 23:20:53 CET