On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Steve Summit <[email protected]> wrote: > Part of the problem, as Zefram has pointed out, is that when we > attempt to compute 00:00:36 minus anything, we're subtracting a > relative time from an absolute TAI time, which gives us another > absolute TAI time, *not* a UTC time. So the method is already > suspect.
I strongly disagree with this assertion. We're subtracting the time, and converting bases from the regular radix of TAI to the irregular radix of UTC at the same time. In other words, the conversion process isn't just subtracting two times in a vacuum, as I've explained already. My method is self-consistent and produces the correct answers. It maps the TAI sequence of second labels to the UTC sequence of second labels. It doesn't just produce another absolute TAI time. Since Zefram's whole complaint is based on that misunderstanding, I can offer no further critique. Warner _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
