Oh no, you were so right... or so you've convinced yourself. > Can you point to it's exact-words, so that the rest of us can see it? >>It's defines a "record"

Oh no, you were so right... or so you've convinced yourself. > Can you point to it's exact-words, so that the rest of us can see it? >>It's defines a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting changes. > There are infinitely-many opportunities to exceed a real-number by infinitely small amounts. All of them existing only in the abstract and none of them applicable to changes of real data. What quantum theory did you study? Looking at what you wrote, any further discussions are pointless. Have a nice day/night/etc.