DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV

View:

 Message: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Topic: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] By Author: [ First | Previous | Next | Last ] Font: Proportional Font

Subject:

Re: precision

From:

Date:

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:32:45 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (38 lines)
 ```On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:44:19 +0100, Jakob Voss wrote > Edward C. Zimmermann wrote: > > From a purely logical view: > > > > {1960,1961,1962,1963,1964,1965,1966,1967,1968,1969} > > is a decade: 10 years. > > That's the basic fallacy. A decade "is" not the set of its years, Precisely is not the set of its years. The set has a precision of year. A decade has a precision of... decade. With a precision of years.. a decade is an interval 1960/1869. With a precision of decade.. a decade is a point in the same manner that a date such as 2008-12-12 is a date point and not an interval 20081212T00:00/20081212T59:59 > but it "consists of" the set of its years. Similar a day is more > than the set of its hours, it's just another kind of concept. For It has its own precision, viz. readability. Interval: / Point: an interval spanning a period X with precision X. Even in ancient Babylon things were divided up into quantities by mathematics sub their precision--- degrees could be sub-divided and sub-divided... -- Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts Office Leo (R&D):   Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich,   Federal Republic of Germany http://www.nonmonotonic.net Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967 ```