On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Zefram <[email protected]> wrote: > Warner Losh wrote: >>I'd suggest that you re-read what I wrote, because these two >>paragraphs do not represent that at all. > > It certainly involves a different result from what you stated, but as > I said, your result doesn't seem to follow from the principle that > you stated. Rereading, my view of your statements hasn't changed. > Of course it's conceivable that I didn't grasp your intent, in which > case I still don't. > > You never explicitly performed the computation for an example such as my > case of 2016-12-31T23:59:59.0 UTC, 2017-01-01T00:00:35.0 TAI. Perhaps you > could clarify your intent by walking through the computation of TAI-UTC > for that instant, contrasting it with the equivalent computation for > 2016-12-31T23:59:60.0 UTC, 2017-01-01T00:00:36.0 TAI. Or, if you prefer, > walk through the computations of the UTC values from the TAI and TAI-UTC > values for those instants. > >>For a negative leapsecond, it's clear that the offset changes at the >>end of :58 second. Briefly, you are adding two to get the next second >>instead of the customary one. > > "Adding two to get the next second" implies the use of the regular > 60-second radix. That's not compatible with your system of `borrowing' > in the irregular radix. > >>My irregular-radix system? > > The aspect of this that I'm attributing to you is the use of the irregular > radix for the arithmetic around the TAI-UTC difference.
If you are going to willfully misunderstand, then I'm done being patient. Warner _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
