In message <CD61D5E8-3341-40DF-B206-D56B2BDBF1A0_at_noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>I said:
>
>> all parties must certainly agree that civil time (as we know it) IS
>> mean solar time.
>
>Ed says:
>
>> saying that it "IS" civil time is probably a bit strong.
>
>"Probably a bit strong" is not precisely a staunch denial.
>
>[...]
>
>This is simply a classic exercise in applying epsilon constraints.
Yes, another inappropriate method used to sell your bogus argument.
It's bogus because neither "local time" nor "civil time" is a
continous variable but a quantified variable (because of the timezones)
The minimum epsilon constraint which is valid for a quantified
variable is the unit of quantum. That is why all digital measurements
by definition have an uncertainty of at least +/- 1 digit.
The longitude conference defined the unit of quantum as 1 hour but
despite this I belive a few localities (.au ?) have opted for a
30minute quantum.
>> 1. local civil time matches apparent solar time roughly
Because local civil time have chosen timezones appropriate for
this purpose.
>> 2. the relationship between local civil time and apparent solar
>> time is constant enough in any one place
Uhm no. Politicians have decided to make it flip 15 degrees forth
and back with summertime regulations.
>> 3. the rate of local civil time is constant at least to the
>> precision of most clocks and watches.
This is a rather empty statement because most clocks and watches
are built, sold, bought and adjusted to show civil time.
>> 4. the relationship between local civil time and international
>> civil time should be predicatable and easy to calculate with
Which is why the longitude conference decided on a 1 hour quantum.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wed Jan 04 2006 - 23:28:44 PST