Re: 00:00:00 or 24:00:00

[Jerry Adams <jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps Zeno's Paradox of the Arrow might have some applicability here, 
huh? .-)

	* Jerry C. Adams
*IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
B&W Wholesale Distributors, Inc.* *
voice
	615.995.7024
fax
	615.995.1201
email
	jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



CRPence wrote:
>    If the 24 hour existed, it would be the last marker in the previous 
> day, but since it does not exist, time always moves from yesterday at 
> 23:59:59.999999~9 to today at 00:00:00 - fortunately, we only have an 
> infinitesimal amount of time to contemplate it, but even before we 
> could, yesterday has already passed into today.
>
>    ;;;;;;;  _Consider the following_:
>
>    It seems to me that in the 24 hour argument, there is a failure to 
> account for a billionth of a second, or any small portions, sub-seconds 
> time.  If the zero hour does not exist, then does that also preclude the 
> simple case of milliseconds 00:00:00.314 into a zero hour?
>
>    If there is in one day, from 00:00:01 until 24:00:00, where did the 
> missing 0.999999~9 portion of a second go?
>        24:00:00.000000~0
>      - 00:00:01.000000~0
>      -------------------
>     =  23:59:59.000000~0
>
>    If 24:00:01 does not exist, then perhaps 24:00:00.999999~9 does, to 
> resolve my missing 0.999999~9 portion of a second?  It looks odd, but 
> the missing partial second is recovered this way!
>       ~24:00:00.999999~9
>      - 00:00:01.000000~0
>      -------------------
>     = ~23:59:59.999999~9
>
>    Or perhaps the zero hour does exist, but only since the first 
> 0.000000~1 portion of a second since the 24 hour?  Ah... there is the 
> partial second again!
>        24:00:00.000000~0
>      -~00:00:00.000000~1
>      -------------------
>     = ~23:59:59.999999~9
>
>    But what about allowing the zero hour and zero [sub-seconds] to 
> exist.  All is accounted for here, as well!
>       ~23:59:59.999999~9
>      - 00:00:00.000000~0
>      -------------------
>     = ~23:59:59.999999~9
>
>    So the last two examples are what is really being talked of in the 
> two claims:
>      1) 24 hour exists, zero hour does not
>      2) Zero hour exists, 24 hour does not
>
>    Sorry, I just do not see 23:59:59.999999~9 rolling over to the value 
> 24:00:00.000000~0 solely to exist for the incalculably-small amount of 
> time before 00:00:00.000000~1 transpires in a similarly incalculably 
> small amount of time [a googolth of a second ;-)].  Even sillier, 
> continuing on, in infinitesimally sub-second slices of time, up to 
> 24:00:00.999999~9 until the magical 00:00:01.000000~0 is finally met.
>
>    An increment from the zero hour makes the most sense to me, with an 
> _asymptotic_ approach to 24; i.e. never reaching 24, _eclipsing_ into 
> the zero hour.  I do not want to try to force fit some 24 hour between 
> 23:59:59.999999~9 and 00:00:00.000000~1 to muddle; the value 
> 00:00:00.000000~0 belongs between.  Zero is too beautiful to ignore. 
> Zero deserves better!  :-)
>
> Regards, Chuck
>