• To: jeni@j...
• Subject: Re: limits of the generic
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:02:20 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: dareo@m... (Dare Obasanjo), uche.ogbuji@f..., jonathan.robie@d... (Jonathan Robie), xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20182469677.20020928184714@j...> from "Jeni Tennison" at Sep 28, 2002 06:47:14 PM

Jeni Tennison scripsit:

> For example, I think that "What is 2002-09-28 plus a year and a day?" is
> also a simple question with a well-defined answer; I don't think it
> should be an error to try to ask it.

Ah, but what is 2004-02-29 plus a year and a day?

Time labeling is an impossible compromise between incommensurable
astronomical cycles, and can never be really clean.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@r...  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy.  Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett.  By their works shall ye know them.  However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works.  Indeed, Bummett does not exist.  It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• References:
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Previous by thread: RE: limits of the generic
• Next by thread: Re: limits of the generic
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread