Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!news.unige.ch!usenet
From: sylvere@divsun.unige.ch (Silvere Martin-Michiellot)
Subject: Re: Is time continuous?
Message-ID: <1995Feb22.144657.26383@news.unige.ch>
Sender: usenet@news.unige.ch
Reply-To: sylvere@divsun.unige.ch
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland
References: <1995Feb20.144659.9334@vax.sbu.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 14:46:57 GMT
Lines: 38

In article 9334@vax.sbu.ac.uk, schleip@vax.sbu.ac.uk writes:
>The term "density" has been applied to various models of time to describe 
>the domain over which time is perceived. Three domains have been postulated:
>"discrete", where time is mapped to the set of integers; "dense", where
>time is mapped to rational numbers; and "continuous", where time is mapped
>to real numbers.
>
>Intuitively, time is continuous in that you can always reduce the size of
>the fraction of whatever unit you're using to measure time to obtain a more
>accurate measurement. But is this actually the case?
>
>Is it possible that there is a fundamentally "atomic" unit of time? Does time
>flow in "chunks"? If so, would it be possible to detect them? Could
>relativistic time dilation manifest by varying the size of these time chunks?
>
>Cheers,

FLAME ON 

First, you shouldn't cross post your article to so many groups.
second, this is NOT the group that should answer this question
third, don't use a 2 miles long signature (deleted here) when you send a mail :
        it is of no use.

I send this message for the other stupid guys that are tempted to do the 
3 things above. you are warned. (a copy is send ten times to the original poster).

Bastard 

FLAME OFF

-----------------

"Is anyone alive down there ?"

Silvere MARTIN-MICHIELLOT


