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. MS
