Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BGB <cr88192@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 19:43:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <vtka7u$2ddeu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com> <vsj1m8$1f8h2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsj2l9$1j0as$1@dont-email.me> <vsjef3$1u4nk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsjg6t$20pdb$1@dont-email.me> <vsjgjn$1v1n4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsjk4k$24q5m$1@dont-email.me> <vsjlcp$230a5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsni1v$291i3$5@dont-email.me>
 <slrnvv82gk.2aciv.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
 <vt1a7f$i5jd$1@dont-email.me> <vti36r$g4nu$2@dont-email.me>
 <slrnvvqhmc.2eh69.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
 <vtjknt$1sp26$1@dont-email.me> <vtk2f9$295ku$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 02:45:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1f06efe67fcfe016ce6b61e61383328a";
	logging-data="2536926"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19iEWdcPHNqwGgQYmHWCDSfzF58OVKcgLk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bbsbhLuPy2R612qbgewPKEALK74=
In-Reply-To: <vtk2f9$295ku$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3054

On 4/14/2025 5:33 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:36:07 -0500, BGB wrote:
> 
>> On 4/14/2025 12:40 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 04:33 this Monday (GMT):
>>>
>>>> I worked out that an integer of a little over 200 bits is sufficient
>>>> to represent the age of the known Universe in units of the Planck
>>>> interval (5.39e-44 seconds). Therefore, rounding to something more
>>>> even, 256 bits should be more than enough to measure any physically
>>>> conceivable time down to that resolution.
>>>
>>> The problem then becomes storing that size.
>>
>> More practical is storing the time in microseconds.
> 
> Relative to what epoch?
> 

Probably still Jan 1 1970...

But, +/- a few decades (or centuries, or millennia) wont matter much 
over a half million years or so.

If humans as we know them are still around by the time it rolls over 
(eg, not extinct or mutated into something different), they can probably 
figure it out.

Or, we could possibly even put the epoch 200k years in the future or 
something.


> I figured that it would be hard to find an epoch less arbitrary than the
> Big Bang ...

But, we don't really need it.

If so, could probably extend to 128 bits, maybe go to nanoseconds or 
picoseconds. This would more than cover the current age of the universe...

But, it is overkill for current use.
Meanwhile, one can do math on 64 bit values without too much hassle.