On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 15:56:56 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:>On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:36:07 -0500, BGB wrote:On 4/14/2025 12:40 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 04:33 this Monday
(GMT):I worked out that an integer of a little over 200 bits is sufficient
to represent the age of the known Universe in units of the Planck
interval (5.39e-44 seconds). Therefore, rounding to something more
even, 256 bits should be more than enough to measure any physically
conceivable time down to that resolution.
The problem then becomes storing that size.
More practical is storing the time in microseconds.
Relative to what epoch?
>
I figured that it would be hard to find an epoch less arbitrary than
the Big Bang ...
Why??
That would not be practical or useful. The timing of the Big Bang is
not known with great precision ...
Neither is that of some fictional religious entity.
>
So we pick some value close to where we think it is. And then discover in
the future that it was some few million years before or after that point.
No biggie.
You have again snipped relevant context from my previous post. Worse,
you have not indicated that you snipped it. (A common convention is to
insert a line like "[...]" or "[snip]" in place of the snipped text.)
Stop doing that.
Your suggestion is silly, it is impractical for reasons you refuse to
acknowledge, and I won't waste any more time discussing it with you.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.