Steve Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If I read it right you have reinvented Markus Kuhn's UTS [...]

Close to it, but...

Ed Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> followed up:

> Also, Markus wasn't proposing UTS as a civil timescale but just
> for use within computer systems, etc.

Therein lies the key difference.  I have strived to make my argument as
independent of computers as I could.  To me the need for a real number
time scale is necessitated more by philosophy than computer science,
which is why I have resorted so much to the mathematical abstraction of
a real number in my paper.

My central argument still stands that current UTC is unsuitable for the
*philosophical* application of defining the abstract ideal scale of
civil time since it is not a scale in the mathematical definition of
this term (a real number).  I believe that the scale of civil time needs
to be a scale.  Furthermore, I believe that it should be related to the
cycle of day and night rather than completely decoupled from it, so I
won't support freezing the leap seconds for the next few centuries as a
"solution".  That leaves me with my current position of arguing for a
coordinated time scale with elongated and shortened seconds.


Reply via email to