Nicholas Van Weerdenburg
1/25/2005 10:13:00 PM
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:29:55 +0900, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:12:22 +0900, Nicholas Van Weerdenburg
> <vanweerd@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:00:33 +0900, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:44:33 +0900, Jim Weirich
> <jim@weirichhouse.org > wrote:
> >>> Chad Fowler said:
> >>>>> Yes, location too -- sorry, not Sydney. Announcement to follow
> >>>>> fairly soon....
> >>>> Aren't you all in my mind with me? Wasn't it obvious that
> >>>> "time" meant location in this context? ;)
> >>> Well, obviously you were speaking four dimensionally and meant a
> >>> point in Space/Time.
> >> Range, not point. ;)
> > Really? Why is that?
>
> A point in spacetime is a single location and instant; a range
> allows for both variance in location (e.g., the various locations of
> the conference centre/hotel(s) and restaurants) and time (the
> typically two and a half days of conference).
>
> -austin
> --
> Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
> * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca
>
>
Of course. I should have thought before posting.
It's actually a weird language thing- "at what point will you do this"
is maybe inaccurate since it implies both the start and end (or
superpowers). Though "point" deos have an overloaded meaning where
it's not of no size, but rather means a small range. But, it would
properly be the geometric definition if talking space-time.
Thanks,
Nick
--
Nicholas Van Weerdenburg