On 1/19/2015 10:22 AM, Paul wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Mike S <mi...@flatsurface.com> wrote:
You're citing a internal letter, from one BIPM group to another, asking
them to bring something before the ITU. It's not normative, it's not
informational, it's just correspondence.
That doesn't make any sense. When the ITU decides *not* do to something
it's equally informative as when they decide to do something.
Again, you need to up your understanding of standards terminology.
For those wonder that "internal letter" from CCTF to BIPM notes that "The
UTC system as defined today is a *stepped* atomic time scale" [emphasis
mine] which is quoting the ITU and can also be found at <
http://www.itu.int/net/newsroom/wrc/2012/reports/atomic_time.aspx> which
discusses why the ITU continues to leave UTC stepped.
non-sequitur. They're comparing UTC with TAI. From a TAI perspective,
UTC steps backwards. From a UTC perspective, TAI steps forward, going
further out of sync with Sol. However, mathematically both are
continuous functions. The "stepping" is a meta-result of the difference
in how they enumerate time. UTC is continuous and monotonic.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UT2>
FTFY.
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
