Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Assumptions ...

Expand Messages
  • piebaldconsult
    ... There s actually only one very long shelf. On second thought, ISO 8601 mentions at least two: one for UTC and one for UT1. The leap seconds (and days?) are
    Message 1 of 49 , Oct 1, 2006
      > Whether you choose to consider 23:59:60Z part of 23:59Z or not is
      > irrelevant. It is represented as such when using Zulu time, which is
      > all that matters. It's on the same shelf as the other seconds in this
      > minute.

      There's actually only one very long shelf. On second thought, ISO 8601
      mentions at least two: one for UTC and one for UT1. The leap seconds
      (and days?) are used in an effort to keep the two in sync.

      > UTC was not created by ISO. ITU-R is responsible for the definition
      > of UTC. Physically, UTC is maintained by BIPM and leap seconds are
      > determined by IERS.

      But do any of those bodies document exactly whether or not the second
      belongs to the minute? And if so, does ISO 8601 reference such a
      document, even if non-normatvely?

      > I'm still wondering how negative leap seconds are possible, if hours
      > and minutes can never vary.

      Yeah, that's pretty much where my arguments hit a wall (so I've avoided
      it).

      In order for that to work (and it wouldn't) there is no T23:59:59Z that
      day (as stated, it's omitted), so for the minute T23:59Z to have sixty
      seconds it must borrow T24:00:00Z (T00:00:00Z from the following day).

      The T00:00:00Z in question therefore belongs to _both_ minutes...
      ummm... which shouldn't be allowed. But at least balance would be
      preserved, a positive leap second belongs to no minute and a negative
      leap second belongs to two.
    • John Hynes
      ... Not really. Although they share a collective consciousness, or whatever, they are made up of individual units, which are organized into adjuncts,
      Message 49 of 49 , Oct 2, 2006
        --- In ISO8601@yahoogroups.com, "piebaldconsult" <PIEBALDconsult@...>
        wrote:
        > I really thought someone would point out that "two groups of Borg" is
        > an oxymoron.

        Not really. Although they share a collective consciousness, or
        whatever, they are made up of individual units, which are organized
        into adjuncts, unimatrices, cubes, etc. It is possible to be situated
        between two borg cubes, or merely between two groups of borgs coming
        from opposite directions.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.