1602: Linguistics Club

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:54 pm UTC

Really, if we're going to use terms that indicate before and after a given index, shouldn't the times prior to that index count down? 1 AM should be one hour before midday, not one hour after midnight; that, in turn, should be 11AM. So the seconds around noon would count: ..., 0:00:03 AM, 0:00:02 AM, 0:00:01 AM, 0:00:00, 00:00:01 PM, 00:00:02 PM, 00:00:03 PM, .... and the seconds around midnight would count: 11:59:57 PM, 11:59:58 PM, 11:59:59 PM, 12:00:00, 11:59:59 AM, 11:59:58 AM, 11:59:57 AM, ...
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3433
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Nov 13, 2015 12:19 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Really, if we're going to use terms that indicate before and after a given index, shouldn't the times prior to that index count down? 1 AM should be one hour before midday, not one hour after midnight; that, in turn, should be 11AM. So the seconds around noon would count: ..., 0:00:03 AM, 0:00:02 AM, 0:00:01 AM, 0:00:00, 00:00:01 PM, 00:00:02 PM, 00:00:03 PM, .... and the seconds around midnight would count: 11:59:57 PM, 11:59:58 PM, 11:59:59 PM, 12:00:00, 11:59:59 AM, 11:59:58 AM, 11:59:57 AM, ...


That would be logical and consistent, but would mean that, for example, the sequence formed by taking the seconds portion of the time would have no period shorter than a full day - most of the time, the difference between consecutive times when the seconds portion of the time is 10 is 60 seconds; once per day it would be 20 seconds and once per day it would be 100 seconds. When treating time as periodic, it's convenient to have a notation where the digits in any given position cycle in the same direction constantly.

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Coyoty » Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:00 am UTC

I am Charlie Weekly.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:20 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:That would be logical and consistent, but would mean that, for example, the sequence formed by taking the seconds portion of the time would have no period shorter than a full day - most of the time, the difference between consecutive times when the seconds portion of the time is 10 is 60 seconds; once per day it would be 20 seconds and once per day it would be 100 seconds. When treating time as periodic, it's convenient to have a notation where the digits in any given position cycle in the same direction constantly.

Right, which is why it makes much more sense to count seconds since the last interval-marker (e.g. 24 hour clocks), rather than nominally talking about "hours before midday" and "hours after midday" but actually meaning "hours since the beginning of the first half of the day" and "hours since the beginning of the second half of the day".
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Nov 13, 2015 4:07 am UTC

That isn't the ambiguity. At least in the U.S., and I thought everywhere that used a 12 hour clock, 12 p.m. is unambiguously noon and 12 a.m. is unambiguously midnight. The ambiguity is whether 12 a.m. Monday is on the night before or after Monday (i.e. 00:00 or 24:00). There are two midnights every day, in a sense.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Nov 13, 2015 4:13 am UTC

Yeah I'm not saying there's actually any ambiguity amongst most speakers, I'm just adding on to the rationale posited for the guy who thought 12AM was noon ("AM" means "hours after the beginning of the first half of the day", and 12 hours into the first half of the day is midday) that if we were really taking the words literally like he supposedly is, the AM times would be mirrors of the PM times.

Of course, the actual ambiguity is also resolved by the same process of understanding why we don't take the words literally like that, and the convention we do use, which is essentially just this: we conventionally write "12" where we should really write "00' (plus the AM/PM thing). Since 12:00 PM really means 0:00 PM which means the first minute of the second half of the day, then 12:00 AM really means 0:00 AM which means the first minute of the first half of the day, so 12:00 AM Monday means the midnight at the start of Monday, not the one at the end of it. On a 24 hour clock that counts a 0th hour instead of a 24th, there's no ambiguity: the day is 0:00:00 to 23:59:59.99_, and 0:00:00 is the very beginning of the day, not the end of it.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Farabor
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:46 am UTC

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Farabor » Fri Nov 13, 2015 5:09 am UTC

Sadly, there's actually a semi-common use of the sesqui- prefix in my line of work: Sesquilinear forms, which are linear in the first component and conjugate linear in the second. Go figure!

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Adacore » Fri Nov 13, 2015 5:23 am UTC

orthogon wrote:ETA: Ah, I've got it! Prescriptivist Linguistics Club meets 1.5 times per year ("that's what it ought to mean!"), whilst Descriptivist Linguistics Club ("but this is how ordinary speakers use it") meets every 18 months. Every three years the meetings coincide and there's a big fight.

This is one of the best comments I've read on the fora this year. I love the fact that it's both a clever joke and a meta-comment on the coming argument at once.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Steve the Pocket » Fri Nov 13, 2015 4:25 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:One event that really ought to be held sesquennially is the Ashes test series in cricket. Its venue alternates between England and Australia and is always held in the local summer. However, for some reason it's "biennial", which means that there's one every two years on average, but the actual occurrences resemble a Poisson process. Sometimes a team gets to keep the title for almost three years, whereas it was hardly worth England getting changed after winning in 2013 given they had to start the following, 2013/14 series a few weeks later.

See also: the Olympics.

Or, if every year and a half is too frequent for those — given the massive toll it takes on its host city as it is — then change it to every two and a half years, starting on a year ending in zero so it's easy for people to remember that the {Summer|Winter} Olympics are always in years divisible by five.

HES wrote:Since time is continuous, 12:00:00 is infinitesimally short and therefore doesn't exist.

That's a good way to look at it. Any time you look at a clock that says 12:00, it's already after 12:00 (or at least, the probability that it is approaches one infinitely). Therefore if it says 12 noon, it's after noon and thus 12 in the afternoon.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

speising
Posts: 2272
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby speising » Fri Nov 13, 2015 4:31 pm UTC

But when you have to return your car at 12 noon, you have to return it am. Pm will be too late.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby HES » Fri Nov 13, 2015 4:44 pm UTC

The wording in the paperwork is likely to say "by" or "before"
He/Him/His Image

xtifr
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby xtifr » Sat Nov 14, 2015 6:59 pm UTC

HES wrote:Since time is continuous, 12:00:00 is infinitesimally short and therefore doesn't exist.


Extremely dubious premise. See: Planck time. The concept "infinitesimal" in general seems to be at odds with modern physics.
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 14, 2015 7:08 pm UTC

The fact that times shorter than that are fuzzy and uncertain does not imply that time is discrete.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

xtifr
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby xtifr » Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:55 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The fact that times shorter than that are fuzzy and uncertain does not imply that time is discrete.

That's why I said "dubious" instead of "false". But it's more than just "fuzzy and uncertain". It's beyond the bounds of what we can know, as far as we can tell. The observable behavior of the universe is limited to behavior that would be found if time were discrete. So we certainly can't assume it's not!
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:12 pm UTC

Discrete and continuous time do not result in identical behavior at the small scale. In particular, A and B could be separated by slightly more than 1 Planck time, and B and C by slightly more than 1, such that A and C are separated by 3 Planck Times. Or A and B could be less than one Planck time separated (and thus apparently simultaneous), as could B and C, but A and C could be separated by 1 Planck time.

Mikeski
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Mikeski » Sun Nov 15, 2015 10:56 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Discrete and continuous time do not result in identical behavior at the small scale. In particular, A and B could be separated by slightly more than 1 Planck time, and B and C by slightly more than 1, such that A and C are separated by 3 Planck Times. Or A and B could be less than one Planck time separated (and thus apparently simultaneous), as could B and C, but A and C could be separated by 1 Planck time.

Absolutely.

Unfortunately, we can only measure things at the scale of septillions or octillions of Planck times, so it'll be a while before someone devises an experiment to prove time to be discrete or continuous.

Once we get there, the universe will be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Nov 16, 2015 12:04 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:Discrete and continuous time do not result in identical behavior at the small scale. In particular, A and B could be separated by slightly more than 1 Planck time, and B and C by slightly more than 1, such that A and C are separated by 3 Planck Times. Or A and B could be less than one Planck time separated (and thus apparently simultaneous), as could B and C, but A and C could be separated by 1 Planck time.

Absolutely.

Unfortunately, we can only measure things at the scale of septillions or octillions of Planck times, so it'll be a while before someone devises an experiment to prove time to be discrete or continuous.

Once we get there, the universe will be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

Right, but xtir was talking about "what we can know."

xtifr
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby xtifr » Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:24 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Discrete and continuous time do not result in identical behavior at the small scale. In particular, A and B could be separated by slightly more than 1 Planck time, and B and C by slightly more than 1, such that A and C are separated by 3 Planck Times. Or A and B could be less than one Planck time separated (and thus apparently simultaneous), as could B and C, but A and C could be separated by 1 Planck time.

With Special Relativity, we have a hard enough time defining the order of two separate events, let alone three. Unless there's causality involved (i.e. one event leads to another), the ordering, let alone the duration, of events may depend entirely on the observer. Simultaneity is not a concept modern physicists have much to do with.

Once you get down to the Planck level, this all gets very messy. You have to start factoring in General Relativity as well, and we're still not entirely sure how General Relativity applies at that scale. We do know that spacetime itself appears to behave bizarrely, but we still haven't worked the details. GR generally treats spacetime as smooth, but there's evidence to suggest that it's not at the Planck level. And since time itself is merely part of spacetime, that greatly complicates trying to measure anything in Planck time, since it may not always be properly distinguishable from the Planck length.

So, honestly, while I'm not sure you're wrong, I have serious doubts that things work anywhere near as simply as you describe.
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:23 am UTC

xtifr wrote:With Special Relativity, we have a hard enough time defining the order of two separate events, let alone three. Unless there's causality involved (i.e. one event leads to another), the ordering, let alone the duration, of events may depend entirely on the observer. Simultaneity is not a concept modern physicists have much to do with.
There doesn't have to be actual cause involved. SR gives us the order of events whenever they are timelike separated (one is in the past or future light cone of the other). And Eebster's account remains the same even if you start out talking about a particular frame of reference. (As does simultaneity, for that matter. Modern physicists have no problem with the concept, any more than they have a problem with the concept of length. Yes it depends on your frame of reference but that doesn't mean it's meaningless to talk about.)

The point is, a continuous universe would not look the same as a discrete universe, even if the continuous universe is "fuzzy" on a very small scale.

xtifr wrote:but there's evidence to suggest that it's not at the Planck level
Which evidence would that be, exactly? The very page you linked to says, "Because the Planck time comes from dimensional analysis, which ignores constant factors, there is no reason to believe that exactly one unit of Planck time has any special physical significance."

In any case, even if time were discrete it would be on a scale so much shorter than any of the ways we determine or report time, even with atomic clocks, that the vast majority of any period seriously referred to as 12:00 or 12:00:00.000000 or whatever is still after the exact chronon of noon.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Kit. » Mon Nov 16, 2015 12:37 pm UTC

xtifr wrote:It's beyond the bounds of what we can know, as far as we can tell.

Are you suggesting that we cannot know quantum gravity?

User avatar
The Moomin
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:59 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby The Moomin » Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:19 pm UTC

HES wrote:Since time is continuous, 12:00:00 is infinitesimally short and therefore doesn't exist.


From this premise is it then possible to prove by induction that no time exists?
I possibly don't pay enough attention to what's going on.
I help make architect's dreams flesh.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2962
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby orthogon » Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:49 pm UTC

The Moomin wrote:
HES wrote:Since time is continuous, 12:00:00 is infinitesimally short and therefore doesn't exist.


From this premise is it then possible to prove by induction that no time exists?

I think what we're saying is that it's almost never midday.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:23 pm UTC

If the universe is eternal, it's almost never midday even if time is discrete.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:28 pm UTC

The Moomin wrote:
HES wrote:Since time is continuous, 12:00:00 is infinitesimally short and therefore doesn't exist.


From this premise is it then possible to prove by induction that no time exists?


Hey Zeno, long time no see.

...I mean, not actually long time, but, you know....
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:32 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:If the universe is eternal, it's almost never midday even if time is discrete.
If midday is defined depending on actual Earth days rather than ticks of a clock.

(Also, if you have a measure on a countably infinite set.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2962
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby orthogon » Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:58 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
The Moomin wrote:
HES wrote:Since time is continuous, 12:00:00 is infinitesimally short and therefore doesn't exist.


From this premise is it then possible to prove by induction that no time exists?


Hey Zeno, long time no see.

...I mean, not actually long time, but, you know....

Well, the resolution of Zeno's paradox is that an infinite sum of finite values can be finite. Here we're saying that an infinite sum of infinitesimal values can be nonzero. Or even infinite.

Also, I guess you can't prove that by induction, because there's no "next" time after 12.00. Times can be mapped to the reals, and you can't prove by induction over the reals.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby ps.02 » Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:00 pm UTC

xtifr wrote:While I'm at it, completely off-topic, but inspired by an earlier post:

Pneumonoultra-

I was gonna accuse you of plagiarism, then I looked it up in my fortune file to see whom you didn't credit ... and ... um, never mind.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:44 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:If the universe is eternal, it's almost never midday even if time is discrete.
If midday is defined depending on actual Earth days rather than ticks of a clock.

(Also, if you have a measure on a countably infinite set.)

You can just define "almost always" to mean "always except for a finite set of exceptions."

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:23 pm UTC

That still requires you to assume "midday" must necessarily refer to something about days on Earth. If instead we define it by a clock standard, then in an eternal universe there will be an infinite number of chronons separated by some multiple of exactly 86400 seconds from, say, noon today.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Eebster the Great » Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:20 pm UTC

Well sure, if a "day" is just a period of time equal to n chronons for some specific large n, then obviously 1/n of the time it will be "exactly noon." But I think "midday" is a pretty planet-centric term. Even if it's not on the Earth, if it's on some planet or moon or other body that could be reasonably said to have "days," it will have only a finite number of them.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3433
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:54 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Well sure, if a "day" is just a period of time equal to n chronons for some specific large n, then obviously 1/n of the time it will be "exactly noon." But I think "midday" is a pretty planet-centric term. Even if it's not on the Earth, if it's on some planet or moon or other body that could be reasonably said to have "days," it will have only a finite number of them.


If you're ignoring the clock, then it's always midday somewhere on Earth...

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Nov 17, 2015 12:52 am UTC

It doesn't matter. The Earth's life is finite.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:01 am UTC

If time is continuous and it is continuously midday somewhere on Earth for a finite period of time, then there are an infinity of times where it is midday. Does that still count as "almost never"? If all real numbers except the infinitely many real numbers between 3 and 5 meet some criteria, do "almost all" numbers meet that criteria?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby CharlieP » Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:42 pm UTC

Coyoty wrote:I am Charlie Weekly.


Lucky you. I have to be Charlie all the time.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:59 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:If time is continuous and it is continuously midday somewhere on Earth for a finite period of time, then there are an infinity of times where it is midday. Does that still count as "almost never"? If all real numbers except the infinitely many real numbers between 3 and 5 meet some criteria, do "almost all" numbers meet that criteria?

Well my original quote was:
EebstertheGreat wrote:If the universe is eternal, it's almost never midday even if time is discrete.

So yes, I am assuming discrete time. I don't think there is any sense in which a subset of nonzero measure can be said to be "almost nowhere."

In continuous time, it is "midday in Cleveland" long as it is midday somewhere in Cleveland, but "noon, Easter Standard Time" only once per day, and so only finitely many times total.

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Coyoty » Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:31 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:In continuous time, it is "midday in Cleveland" long as it is midday somewhere in Cleveland, but "noon, Easter Standard Time" only once per day, and so only finitely many times total.


It has often been noted that moments in Cleveland seem to take forever.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby Steve the Pocket » Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:57 am UTC

Reminds me of a comic I never got around to drawing.

Guy having a drink: "It's five o'clock somewhere!"
Other person: "Actually, it's 11:17, so no, I don't think it's five o'clock anywhere right now."
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1602: Linguistics Club

Postby CharlieP » Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:54 pm UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:Reminds me of a comic I never got around to drawing.

Guy having a drink: "It's five o'clock somewhere!"
Other person: "Actually, it's 11:17, so no, I don't think it's five o'clock anywhere right now."


11:17 UTC would only be two minutes past five o'clock in Nepal.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests