Talk:Instant

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Time Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Metaphysics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shouldn't this be an article? an "instant" is different from the "present". Instantaneous velocity at t=+12seconds is not the present velocity, if t<>+12 seconds

65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Even though "instant" is not a synonym of "present", if it is adequately explained in the article on present, then this redirect is sufficient. So you could just enhance that article.

The present is an instant. And what was the present at some time in the past was an instant. Similarly for the future. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The present is an instant, but not all instants are the present, or have been, or will be. Many usages are theoretical, such as an instant on a function graph for a theoretical construct. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would that not be called an "instance" rather than an "instant"? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not according to wiktionary wikt:instance / wikt:instant ; the entire function graph would be an instance of a function graph, a point on the time-axis would be an instant. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source for the definition "An instant is a infinitesimal moment in time" ? Tkuvho (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

By the time. Not the time - not and all. Даже Бога. Хоть шаром катись .. А не в чем. И оное ни в чём и в полнейшем отсутствии .. "Но потом кааак всё свалилось .. в ничто и никуда конешно .. ?? Так было. И так всегда будет ! 85.140.22.183 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The usual phrasing would "A and B are mutually exclusive". "Instantaneous is, with respect to the measurement of time, mutually exclusive" doesn't make sense. Should that say "instantaneous and the measurement of time are mutually exclusive."? John G Hasler (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply