[ntp:questions] Leap second to be introduced in June

Mike S mikes at flatsurface.com
Mon Jan 19 15:43:43 UTC 2015

On 1/19/2015 10:22 AM, Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Mike S <mikes at 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>


More information about the questions mailing list