What is wrong with this reasoning about final nirvana?

1. anicca: things only exist for a moment: I infer that every rebirth that occurs does so in a present moment. 2. dukkha: I am suffering: I infer that I am conclusively not in final nirvana. 3. anatta: there is no soul: I infer that I am nothing in addition to what is reborn. 4. ***we cannot fully establish when now occurs***. I think 1 and 4 mean that the time of rebirth is vague, because every rebirth occurs in the present and it's borderline when that is. **Assuming, then, that every rebirth has a vague truth value for occurring at some time, then all times have a vague truth value for being when some rebirth occurs, because if some time has a sharp truth value for being when some rebirth occurs (which must be the case if the conclusion if false) then some rebirth has a sharp truth value for occurring at some time (which cannot by the case if the assumption is true).** Given A. I have not at this time borderline realised final nirvana (see 2) B. I am borderline reborn at this time (see above) I might conclude: C. Not being reborn is not identical to final nirvana. Seeing as I am nothing in addition to what is reborn (see 3), I might conclude that ***final nirvana is nothing***. ---------- The section in bold is the part that I am most confused about: and I would especially want an answer that refutes its reasoning. The italics are my own asusmption and conclusion. Answering that 1-3 are poor descriptions of their terms would be unhelpful in this instance, but worth commenting about.