Warner Losh wrote: >I'd suggest that you re-read what I wrote, because these two >paragraphs do not represent that at all.
It certainly involves a different result from what you stated, but as I said, your result doesn't seem to follow from the principle that you stated. Rereading, my view of your statements hasn't changed. Of course it's conceivable that I didn't grasp your intent, in which case I still don't. You never explicitly performed the computation for an example such as my case of 2016-12-31T23:59:59.0 UTC, 2017-01-01T00:00:35.0 TAI. Perhaps you could clarify your intent by walking through the computation of TAI-UTC for that instant, contrasting it with the equivalent computation for 2016-12-31T23:59:60.0 UTC, 2017-01-01T00:00:36.0 TAI. Or, if you prefer, walk through the computations of the UTC values from the TAI and TAI-UTC values for those instants. >For a negative leapsecond, it's clear that the offset changes at the >end of :58 second. Briefly, you are adding two to get the next second >instead of the customary one. "Adding two to get the next second" implies the use of the regular 60-second radix. That's not compatible with your system of `borrowing' in the irregular radix. >My irregular-radix system? The aspect of this that I'm attributing to you is the use of the irregular radix for the arithmetic around the TAI-UTC difference. -zefram _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs