On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:12:07 -0500, John Gilmore wrote: > >The sequence > > 2012 June 30, 23h 59m 59s > 2012 June 30, 23h 59m 60s > 2012 July 1, 0h 0m 0s > >will certainly appear in the transmitted sequence, but its middling >term was chosen to call attention to itself precisely because it is >NOT a valid date-time value. It appearance does not legitimate the >notion that 60 is a valid term in a zero-origin cycle modulo 60. The >mathematics of these things has been settled since Gauss. > Your second sentence is quite true. But what is your authority for asserting that the seconds (as they may have been respecified by UTC) must be a zero-origin cycle modulo 60? The excerpt above from IERS Bulletin C:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/bul/bulc/bulletinc.dat ... and the Wikipedia article cited by the author of WP102081: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second ... both appear to imply otherwise. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN