In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
