I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 30/01/2015 00:42, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.


And if you don't have the cash available then, they try again at 15:30
(well LLoyds do anyway)

We make payments from your account shortly after
midnight at the start of the due date. If your payment
date falls on a non-working day, then we will try to
collect your payment the next working day.
If you dont have enough funds in your account at
this point to make a payment, we will try to make a
payment again after 3.30pm the same day. This gives
you the chance to put extra funds into your account so
that we can make the payment. The money needs to
be available to use straight away, so you could transfer
money from another personal account you have with
us via Internet, Mobile or Telephone Banking or pay in
cash over the counter in branch.

--
CB

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:42:42 AM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

because the is no such time at 00.00

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 02:55:43 -0800, zaax wrote:

I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

because the is no such time at 00.00

So what is the minute between 23:59 and 00:01?

On 30/01/15 10:55, zaax wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:42:42 AM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

because the is no such time at 00.00


Yes there is:


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock

Tim Watts wrote:
On 30/01/15 10:55, zaax wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:42:42 AM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

because the is no such time at 00.00


Yes there is:


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock

I think the problem with 00:00 is the ambiguity associated with ascribing a
date to it.

Tim

On 30/01/15 12:10, Tim+ wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 30/01/15 10:55, zaax wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:42:42 AM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

because the is no such time at 00.00


Yes there is:


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock

I think the problem with 00:00 is the ambiguity associated with ascribing a
date to it.

Tim


As a computing person I find no ambiguity.

00:00 is the first minute at the start of a new day.

24:00 is a slightly special case as being just past the last minute at
the end of a day (see railway example in Wiki above, vis a vis Arr vs Dep)

Tim+ wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 30/01/15 10:55, zaax wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:42:42 AM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

because the is no such time at 00.00


Yes there is:


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock

I think the problem with 00:00 is the ambiguity associated with ascribing a
date to it.

I see no ambiguity. This coming midnight is 0:00 tomorrow (AKA 24:00 today).

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:10:18 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
On 30/01/15 10:55, zaax wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:42:42 AM UTC, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just
after midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

because the is no such time at 00.00


Yes there is:


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock

I think the problem with 00:00 is the ambiguity associated with
ascribing a date to it.

Surely there is no ambiguity. It starts the next day.

And that's why 24:00 is not a valid time.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

I thought zaax's objection was to the use of a decimal point (00.00)
instead of a colon (00:00)

I think the problem with 00:00 is the ambiguity associated with
ascribing a date to it.

That's a common reason for not using it in eg rail and bus timetables.
But it's perfectly useable where readers won't get confused - eg in
Excel when calculating differences. There and elsewhere it is the start
of the day. As opposed to "midnight" which is the end of the day - as
eg in licenses which tell pubs etc they can stay open to 2 a.m. except
midnight on Sundays.



--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:26:38 PM UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 30/01/15 12:10, Tim+ wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 30/01/15 10:55, zaax wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:42:42 AM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

because the is no such time at 00.00


Yes there is:


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock

I think the problem with 00:00 is the ambiguity associated with ascribing a
date to it.

Tim


As a computing person I find no ambiguity.

00:00 is the first minute at the start of a new day.

24:00 is a slightly special case as being just past the last minute at
the end of a day (see railway example in Wiki above, vis a vis Arr vs Dep)

My bank freezes the funds a day early. (i.e.) Payment due on a Monday and the appropriate amount is frozen from the previous Friday.

Of course it works the other way on a transfer of funds into the account. Do it today and it will be tomorrow before you see it.

24:00 is a slightly special case as being just past the last minute at
the end of a day (see railway example in Wiki above, vis a vis Arr vs
Dep)

I don't see a difference between eg 31 December 2014 00:00:00 and 1
January 2015 00:00:00. The railway example is, I suggest, more a matter
of timetables rounding down departure times and rounding up arrival
times. And in many cases simply avoiding use of 00:00 altogether:
notes to last year's national rail timetable had

"Do not worry about the ambiguity as to which day Midnight itself
belongs, for, to avoid this problem, all times skip from 2359 to 0001
and neither 0000 nor 2400 is ever used!"
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Friday, 30 January 2015 12:57:40 UTC, Mike Barnes wrote:
Tim+ wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 30/01/15 10:55, zaax wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:42:42 AM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

because the is no such time at 00.00


Yes there is:


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock

I think the problem with 00:00 is the ambiguity associated with ascribing a
date to it.

I see no ambiguity. This coming midnight is 0:00 tomorrow (AKA 24:00 today).

For me 24:00 is today and 00:00 is tomorrow.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

because the is no such time at 00.00

Yes there is:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock

That Wikipedia article is very good. I had occasion to look at it a few
weeks ago, and a lot of things that had been hazy for the last couple of
decades became clear.

I was converted to using 24-hour time many years ago, when I was part of
a University computing service, and our Operations Manager explained to
me simply, and swiftly, why using the 12-hour clock was a dead duck, for
us anyway. Although in our organisation "intellectual argument" was a
part of most interactions, I was instantly converted

J.

Interesting Factoid, on the 30th June we will get a time of 23:59:60....

Robin put finger to keyboard:

24:00 is a slightly special case as being just past the last minute at
the end of a day (see railway example in Wiki above, vis a vis Arr vs
Dep)

I don't see a difference between eg 31 December 2014 00:00:00 and 1
January 2015 00:00:00.

Eh? They're a day apart!

The railway example is, I suggest, more a matter
of timetables rounding down departure times and rounding up arrival
times. And in many cases simply avoiding use of 00:00 altogether:
notes to last year's national rail timetable had

"Do not worry about the ambiguity as to which day Midnight itself
belongs, for, to avoid this problem, all times skip from 2359 to 0001
and neither 0000 nor 2400 is ever used!"

A sensible compromise.

In article ,
Bob Eager writes:

And that's why 24:00 is not a valid time.

It is when a leap second is added in, although it's sometimes shown
as 23:59:60.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:47:18 +0000, Scion wrote:

I don't see a difference between eg 31 December 2014 00:00:00 and 1
January 2015 00:00:00.

Eh? They're a day apart!

Indeed. One of them is immediately after 30/12/14 23:59:59, the other is
immediately after 31/12/14 23:59:59

Simple answer is to roll forward or backward one second and see if it
makes sense - so one second before 31/12/14 00:00:00 cannot possibly be
31/12/14 23:59:59, but has to be 30/12/14 23:59:59, and one second after
is not 1/1/15 00:00:01, but 31/12/14 00:00:01.

Similarly, it can't be 24:00:00, since it's not followed by 24:00:01, but
by 00:00:01.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:10:24 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

And that's why 24:00 is not a valid time.

It is when a leap second is added in, although it's sometimes shown as
23:59:60.

Not 23:59:59-echo-echo-echo? grin

Tim Streater put finger to keyboard:

In article , Scion
wrote:

Robin put finger to keyboard:

24:00 is a slightly special case as being just past the last minute
at the end of a day (see railway example in Wiki above, vis a vis Arr
vs Dep)

I don't see a difference between eg 31 December 2014 00:00:00 and 1
January 2015 00:00:00.

Eh? They're a day apart!

Indeed. And for the avoidance of doubt, time goes like this:

23:59:58 23:59:59 00:00:00 00:00:01 etc

There is no 24:anything.

True, although 24:00 is used to denote exactly the start of 00:00 the
following day.

For example in car insurance, if your old policy runs out on 30/01/15 at
23:59 and the new one starts on 31/01/15 at 0:00 then what's the score on
the 30th at 23:59 and 30 seconds?
Saying the old policy expires on 30/01/15 at 24:00 is intended to clarify
that the extra minute between 23:59 and 00:00 is indeed covered.
I would argue that there are better and clearer ways of communicating that
fact, but there you have it.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:27:41 +0000, Scion wrote:

For example in car insurance, if your old policy runs out on 30/01/15 at
23:59 and the new one starts on 31/01/15 at 0:00 then what's the score
on the 30th at 23:59 and 30 seconds?

23:59 includes 23:59:00 to 23:59.9999999

As soon as 23:59 finishes, it's 00:00 - so the exact point at which the
old policy expires is the exact point at which the new one starts.

Gawd knows what happens if - just on the stroke of midnight - your car is
just bouncing out-of-control off a bus towards the queue of nuns carrying
baskets of kittens.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Scion
wrote:

Robin put finger to keyboard:

24:00 is a slightly special case as being just past the last minute at
the end of a day (see railway example in Wiki above, vis a vis Arr vs
Dep)

I don't see a difference between eg 31 December 2014 00:00:00 and 1
January 2015 00:00:00.

Eh? They're a day apart!

Indeed. And for the avoidance of doubt, time goes like this:

23:59:58
23:59:59
00:00:00
00:00:01
etc

There is no 24:anything.

2400 is a useful shorthand for 0000 the next day, especially if it's
indicating the end of a time period.

Some continental no-parking signs are qualified by '0-24', which IMO is
much better than our 'AT ANY TIME'. Not that there's any need for either
of them IMO... no parking is no parking.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

In message , CB writes
On 30/01/2015 00:42, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.


And if you don't have the cash available then, they try again at 15:30
(well LLoyds do anyway)

We make payments from your account shortly after
midnight at the start of the due date. If your payment
date falls on a non-working day, then we will try to
collect your payment the next working day.
If you dont have enough funds in your account at
this point to make a payment, we will try to make a
payment again after 3.30pm the same day. This gives
you the chance to put extra funds into your account so
that we can make the payment. The money needs to
be available to use straight away, so you could transfer
money from another personal account you have with
us via Internet, Mobile or Telephone Banking or pay in
cash over the counter in branch.


Yes, our Smile account is similar, they say we can pay in money on the
same day as long as it is available by 16:30.
--
Chris French

On 30/01/2015 13:36, whisky-dave wrote:

For me 24:00 is today and 00:00 is tomorrow.

No, they're both today. I'm typing this at 15:47 so 00:00 was 15 hours
and 47 minutes ago as the clock ticked past midnight at the start of
today and 24:00 will be 9 hours and 13 minutes later at the end of today.

--
Mike Clarke

Adrian put finger to keyboard:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:27:41 +0000, Scion wrote:

For example in car insurance, if your old policy runs out on 30/01/15
at 23:59 and the new one starts on 31/01/15 at 0:00 then what's the
score on the 30th at 23:59 and 30 seconds?

23:59 includes 23:59:00 to 23:59.9999999

As soon as 23:59 finishes, it's 00:00 - so the exact point at which the
old policy expires is the exact point at which the new one starts.

Gawd knows what happens if - just on the stroke of midnight - your car
is just bouncing out-of-control off a bus towards the queue of nuns
carrying baskets of kittens.

Or you prang your car at 23:55, park it legally at the side of the road,
inform your insurer before midnight, and some muppet (or a nun with a
basket of kittens) smacks into the back of it at 00:05.

Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:47:18 +0000, Scion wrote:

I don't see a difference between eg 31 December 2014 00:00:00 and 1
January 2015 00:00:00.

Eh? They're a day apart!

Hangs head in shame
yes, well, the first was supposed to 31/12/14 24:00:00

Indeed. One of them is immediately after 30/12/14 23:59:59, the other
is immediately after 31/12/14 23:59:59

Simple answer is to roll forward or backward one second and see if it
makes sense - so one second before 31/12/14 00:00:00 cannot possibly
be 31/12/14 23:59:59, but has to be 30/12/14 23:59:59, and one second
after is not 1/1/15 00:00:01, but 31/12/14 00:00:01.

Similarly, it can't be 24:00:00, since it's not followed by 24:00:01,
but by 00:00:01.

Isn't 24:00:00 accepted under ISO8601 in order to avoid confusion about
midnight? For example if the pub only has a license until midnight on
Sunday it's clearer to give chucking out time as 24:00:00 Sunday rather
than 00:00:00 Monday?

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:05:56 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 02:55:43 -0800, zaax wrote:

I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

because the is no such time at 00.00

So what is the minute between 23:59 and 00:01?

Er, which _one_? That's a 2 minute interval you're describing so a
fuller answer to that ill formed question would be, "The last minute
of the previous day, immediately followed by the first minute of the
next day.".

I guess the banks are zerophobic so specify the one minute past the
start of the day to put it beyond reach of confusion that any future
sloppy re- interpretations of when a day finishes and the next day
starts.

Logically, 23:59 is a truncated representation of the final minute of
the day. Similarly, 23:59:59 is a truncated representation of the
final second of the day when 'to the second' precision is demanded.

The starting time for each day, logically, should always be 00:00
which, likewise, is merely a truncated representation of the first
minute of the day.
--
J B Good

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 17:48:58 +0000, Johny B Good wrote:

because the is no such time at 00.00

So what is the minute between 23:59 and 00:01?

Er, which _one_? That's a 2 minute interval you're describing

No, it isn't.

23:59:59 (end of 23:59)
xx:xx:00
....
xx:xx:59
00:01:00 (start of 00:01)

Exactly sixty seconds between the end of 23:59 and the start of 00:01

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:49:02 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

because the is no such time at 00.00

So what is the minute between 23:59 and 00:01?

Er, which _one_? That's a 2 minute interval you're describing

No, it isn't.

23:59:59 (end of 23:59)
xx:xx:00
...
xx:xx:59
00:01:00 (start of 00:01)

Exactly sixty seconds between the end of 23:59 and the start of 00:01

I think you mean (not sure why you put the xxes in so I corrected that
for you):

Because this whole subthread is a debate about what to call those sixty
seconds...

But when the clock ticks over to 23:59, and when the clock ticks over to
00:01, that *is* a two-minute interval.

Well, yes. But one of those minutes is 23:59 - which isn't being debated.
It's one minute between 23:59 ending and 00:01 starting.

Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:49:02 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

because the is no such time at 00.00

So what is the minute between 23:59 and 00:01?

Er, which _one_? That's a 2 minute interval you're describing

No, it isn't.

23:59:59 (end of 23:59)
xx:xx:00
...
xx:xx:59
00:01:00 (start of 00:01)

Exactly sixty seconds between the end of 23:59 and the start of 00:01

I think you mean (not sure why you put the xxes in so I corrected that
for you):

Because this whole subthread is a debate about what to call those sixty
seconds...

But when the clock ticks over to 23:59, and when the clock ticks over to
00:01, that *is* a two-minute interval.

Well, yes. But one of those minutes is 23:59 - which isn't being debated.
It's one minute between 23:59 ending and 00:01 starting.

Far be it from me to stop anyone bickering, but...

I think the two of you are tripping over the fact that hh:mm can either
mean a point in time or an interval of one minute, and it's often not
clear which. Clearly the questioner meant the point in time rather than
the interval. The interval would have been two minutes if had he meant
the interval, but he didn't.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:09:44 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

Because this whole subthread is a debate about what to call those sixty
seconds...

How can they be anything other than 00:00:xx ?

You know that, I know that...

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:05:35 +0000, Mike Barnes wrote:

Far be it from me to stop anyone bickering, but...

Nah, we're agreeing vehemently.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:34:05 +0000, Adrian wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:05:35 +0000, Mike Barnes wrote:

Far be it from me to stop anyone bickering, but...

Nah, we're agreeing vehemently.

Anyway, I thought factode was where you mined factoids...



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Why did I say 23 and 59? Because there are 24 hours in a day and 60
seconds in a minute, and the legal values of those (within a day
period) are 0..23 and 0..59 respectively.

When it comes to law UK statutes have happily used 24:00 for many years
(usually when giving effect to EU Directives). Eg SI 2002/3117 tells
you "Each 8-hour average so calculated shall be assigned to the day on
which it ends, i.e. the first calculation period for any one day shall
be the period from 17:00 on the previous day to 01:00 on that day; the
last calculation period for any one day shall be the period from 16:00
to 24:00 on that day." There's nothing in the Interpretation Act on
this but I'd expect common usage - backed up by ISO8601 - would be
enough for any judge.


--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:57:57 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:49:02 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

because the is no such time at 00.00

So what is the minute between 23:59 and 00:01?

Er, which _one_? That's a 2 minute interval you're describing

No, it isn't.

23:59:59 (end of 23:59)
xx:xx:00
...
xx:xx:59
00:01:00 (start of 00:01)

Exactly sixty seconds between the end of 23:59 and the start of 00:01

I think you mean (not sure why you put the xxes in so I corrected that
for you):

Because this whole subthread is a debate about what to call those sixty
seconds...

But when the clock ticks over to 23:59, and when the clock ticks over to
00:01, that *is* a two-minute interval.

Well, yes. But one of those minutes is 23:59 - which isn't being debated.
It's one minute between 23:59 ending and 00:01 starting.

Interesting. :-) I'm wondering at which point do you insert the 'leap
minute' required to correct for this two minute jump?

Don't forget, when it comes to _representing_ the time of day on a
four digit display, it's simply not possible to represent that
infinitesmally small instance in time when the clock increments the
minutes back to 00, generating a carry into the hours counter which
then generates a carry into the days counter (whether it exists or not
in the clock mechanism) when resetting back to all zeroes to display
the fact that the time period is within the first minute of the next
day.

Unfortunately, even measuring to billionths of a second resolution
doesn't overcome this 'problem'. Time is an 'analogue' quantity that
we note or record in quantum increments. Even supposing the existence
of 'time quanta' as proposed by some researchers, this is more likely
to arise from using a system limited by the quantum behaviour of atoms
used in the construction of such a quantum clock.

IOW, to paraphrase Terry Pratchett, "It's analogue all the way
down!". :-)
--
J B Good

On 30 Jan 2015 19:51:31 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:34:05 +0000, Adrian wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:05:35 +0000, Mike Barnes wrote:

Far be it from me to stop anyone bickering, but...

Nah, we're agreeing vehemently.

Anyway, I thought factode was where you mined factoids...

Ah! At last, someone else has noted the malapropism in the subject
line. :-)
--
J B Good

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:00:51 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 30/01/15 10:55, zaax wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:42:42 AM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

because the is no such time at 00.00


Yes there is:


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock


Interesting uses for recording that special time at the end of a day
as 24:00 which no 4 digit clock will ever display (see the top and
bottom entries of the table for why). These are more a matter of
'convenience' than strict logic.

A clock has to follow strict logic in order to function. You cannot
display both 00:00 _and_ 24:00 simultaneously on a digital clock
display. This leaves you with the choice of either starting the day at
00:01 and ending at 24:00 or, more correctly, starting at 00:00 and
ending with 23:59 before wrapping back round to 00:00 again for the
start of the next day.

Since the display can only report an event that immediately becomes
an historic fact by the femtosecond for the next 60 second time
interval in the case of a 4 digit display, it makes perfect sense to
never use the 00:01 through to 24:00 range to represent the time of
any one day.

It's this wooly minded reasoning based on convenience for the
specific examples where a time of 24:00 is referenced that scares the
banks ****less into 'steering clear' of this troublesome zeroeth
minute of the day.
--
J B Good

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:10:18 +0000 (UTC), Tim+
wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
On 30/01/15 10:55, zaax wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:42:42 AM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

because the is no such time at 00.00


Yes there is:


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock

I think the problem with 00:00 is the ambiguity associated with ascribing a
date to it.


I see absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in using the time of 00:00.
If you're finding this ambiguous, may I respectfully suggest you steer
well clear of any measurement tasks involving the use of a ruler? :-)
--
J B Good

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 05:36:23 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 30 January 2015 12:57:40 UTC, Mike Barnes wrote:
Tim+ wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
On 30/01/15 10:55, zaax wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:42:42 AM UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
I have just noticed that DD's in and out, are paid at 00.01, just after
midnight on the due date.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

because the is no such time at 00.00


Yes there is:


http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock

I think the problem with 00:00 is the ambiguity associated with ascribing a
date to it.

I see no ambiguity. This coming midnight is 0:00 tomorrow (AKA 24:00 today).

For me 24:00 is today and 00:00 is tomorrow.


That's a rather 'interesting take' on the interpretation of the table
shown in that wiki article. So, for you, 00:00 is _both_ "today" _and_
"tomorrow". :-)

In a way, you're correct but only for the briefest and purest of
transient events. Time is nothing if not transient.

A clock can only record transient events for brief historic periods,
minute by minute with a 4 digit display or second by second with a 6
digit display where the historic periods are 60 seconds and 1 second
respectively.

When a 4 digit clock shows 23:59, the best we can say is that we're
less than 60 seconds away from the start of a new day (and we won't
know that we're less than 60 seconds into the first minute of the new
day until the clock display wraps back around to 00:00.

Considering all the debate that's taken place in this thread, I can't
really blame the banks and others for avoiding the problem by
cheating.
--
J B Good

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 05:51:05 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Interesting Factoid, on the 30th June we will get a time of 23:59:60....

Yes, counting from 0 to 60 seconds is a total of 61 seconds. Radio
controlled clocks and devices linked to internet time servers will
have the correction automatically applied. All other timepieces will
require a manual adjustment to, in this case, retard them by one whole
second.
--
J B Good