On Thu 12 Sep 2019 at 22:16:45 (-0500), John Hasler wrote: > David Wright writes: > > Odd that they decided to employ that logic in the 21st century after > > (most) clocks had ceased to tick. > > All clocks tick. "Tick" no longer means "emit a noise once per second" > in modern chronometry.
The sun doesn't. > > But it is remarkable to use logic to prove a contradiction... > > What contradiction? That meridies could also be either ante meridiem or post meridiem. I thought that was your argument for 'call it noon. Say "12 noon" if you feel like being redundant.'¹ > > ...and infinitesimals... > > No infinitesimals here. Perhaps some limits. Yes, when you're starting from clicks. But time is continuous. > > ...to explain an arbitrary colloquialism. > > Describe, not explain. Most people use it so the rest of us have to > deal with it, like it or not. They are going to assume that you know > what they mean by "12PM". If you don't assign the same meaning to it > that they do you will be late for your meeting. A description needs no logic. The problem, as I see it, is that people invoke logic to explain why *their* choice of am or pm for 12 noon is the "correct" one. A meeting is unlikely to be at 12 midnight unless it's an esbat. But if a *Newfoundlander* invites you for "a lunch at 12", best check what they mean. ¹ 12 noon might be redundant, but if you ever print a poster or suchlike, you realise that when people scan it for the time of the event, their eyes are searching for numbers, not words. So you might write that a meeting is at noon in running text, but the poster needs the digits "12". Cheers, David.
