- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Mark Calabretta <mcalabre_at_atnf.CSIRO.AU>

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:39:48 +1100

On Mon 2006/01/09 10:01:27 -0000, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote

in a message to: LEAPSECS_at_ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL

I've just read through the email that has accumulated on this list since

before xmas - impressive volume! Why not devote a fraction of that time

and energy to producing a formal position paper.

*>You've expressed it very badly in the article.
*

...and you've expressed this rather tactlessly!

*>The problem is not that UTC
*

*>can't be expressed as a real number. Rather (and you do sort of say this,
*

*>just not very well), the function UTC(TAI) is not continuous and monotonic.
*

I can't let this one pass - UTC is continuous and monotonic. In fact,

ignoring differences in origin, UTC = TAI. Surprised? If so then

you're confusing a quantity with its representation (though in good

company in doing so).

First consider a graph of a person's age versus calendar date with a

precision of 1 day. The fields in calendar dates are mixed-radix, the

day field is also variable-radix depending on the month, and for

February the year, so how should we plot the calendar axis? Simple, do

it as a count of days and then label it with year, month and day-of-

month; Feb/29 in leap years comes out in the wash. As expected, the

graph is a continuous straight line of slope 1 - no breaks, no kinks -

the person doesn't age in fits and starts!

Now consider extending this graph to sub-second precision, accounting

for leap seconds, with age to be measured in TAI and calendar date in

UTC. Now the date axis must be constructed as a count of seconds of UTC

(SI seconds, same as TAI) measured from birth. As before label the date

axis using conventional calendar/clock notation. The graph is still a

continuous straight line of slope 1 (no breaks, no kinks). Leap seconds

are labelled as 23:59:60 - that is the formal representation, each

second of UTC has a unique label as required for mathematical validity.

(Note that it is incorrect to repeat the seconds count at 59, 00, 01 or

anywhere else, even though that may be required on clock displays for

practical reasons.)

Doing arithmetic on UTC using clock notation is like doing arithemetic

on calendar dates or with numbers using Roman numerals. The principle

difference is that leap days follow a set rule and computations

involving future times can be performed, whereas leap seconds do not

follow a set rule and computations cannot be performed into the future.

I am reminded of a discussion concerning the curious repetition of

"1828" in e = 2.718281828... Simply reexpress the number in base 2,

base e, or something else; the pattern disappears.

Mark Calabretta

ATNF

Received on Mon Jan 09 2006 - 20:40:22 PST

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:39:48 +1100

On Mon 2006/01/09 10:01:27 -0000, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote

in a message to: LEAPSECS_at_ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL

I've just read through the email that has accumulated on this list since

before xmas - impressive volume! Why not devote a fraction of that time

and energy to producing a formal position paper.

...and you've expressed this rather tactlessly!

I can't let this one pass - UTC is continuous and monotonic. In fact,

ignoring differences in origin, UTC = TAI. Surprised? If so then

you're confusing a quantity with its representation (though in good

company in doing so).

First consider a graph of a person's age versus calendar date with a

precision of 1 day. The fields in calendar dates are mixed-radix, the

day field is also variable-radix depending on the month, and for

February the year, so how should we plot the calendar axis? Simple, do

it as a count of days and then label it with year, month and day-of-

month; Feb/29 in leap years comes out in the wash. As expected, the

graph is a continuous straight line of slope 1 - no breaks, no kinks -

the person doesn't age in fits and starts!

Now consider extending this graph to sub-second precision, accounting

for leap seconds, with age to be measured in TAI and calendar date in

UTC. Now the date axis must be constructed as a count of seconds of UTC

(SI seconds, same as TAI) measured from birth. As before label the date

axis using conventional calendar/clock notation. The graph is still a

continuous straight line of slope 1 (no breaks, no kinks). Leap seconds

are labelled as 23:59:60 - that is the formal representation, each

second of UTC has a unique label as required for mathematical validity.

(Note that it is incorrect to repeat the seconds count at 59, 00, 01 or

anywhere else, even though that may be required on clock displays for

practical reasons.)

Doing arithmetic on UTC using clock notation is like doing arithemetic

on calendar dates or with numbers using Roman numerals. The principle

difference is that leap days follow a set rule and computations

involving future times can be performed, whereas leap seconds do not

follow a set rule and computations cannot be performed into the future.

I am reminded of a discussion concerning the curious repetition of

"1828" in e = 2.718281828... Simply reexpress the number in base 2,

base e, or something else; the pattern disappears.

Mark Calabretta

ATNF

Received on Mon Jan 09 2006 - 20:40:22 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:55 PDT
*