The concepts are in base 24, 60, and 10, though they are represented in base 10 
numerals in the manner in which I wrote them. But regardless of the semantics 
we choose to use, we still have to math by representing 2004/02/12 06:13:30.10 
as 2004/02/11 29:72:89.70 if we wish to manually subtract 23:45:58:35 from it. 
Counting the days in between in another matter.

Quoting Chimpsarecute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

......

> 
> You also said:
> 
> > Calculating elapsed time in the current system if awkward. For example,
> how
> > much time elapsed from 2003/05/31 23:45:58.35 UT to 2004/02/12 06:13:30.10
> UT?
> > To perform the calculations we have to use base 24 for the hours, base 60
> > for the minutes and seconds, and base 10 for less than a second.
> Calculations
> > using base 10 for all for all the units less than a day,
> 
> 
> No matter how you calculate the result, you are always using only one "base"
> and that is base 10.  As long as you are using 10 distinct numeric symbols,
> you are using base 10.  In order to work out a problem in base 24, your
> number system would have to have 24 symbols, in which 24 itself would be
> written as "10".  The same is for base 60.  Here you would need 60 numeric
> symbols, in which case "10" would mean 60 (in base 10 numeration).
> 
> What you are calling bases are really conversion factors.  Nothing more,
> nothing less.  You have fallen into the FFU trap, where FFU-ists confuse
> bases with conversion factors and fractional divisions.  A measurement unit
> is not binary because it can be divided into successive halves.  It is
> binary when it only uses two numeric symbols, 1 and 0.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, 2004-02-15 14:04
> Subject: [USMA:28700] Re: Decimal "Metric" time is already in use and the
> use is growing
> 
> 
> > I wrote a lengthy reply but it looks like it never got sent due to me
> getting
> > timed out from my web based email. I have thus attempted to recreate that
> email.
> >
> 

Reply via email to