noon is a.m. or p.m.?
Paul Baran
What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
neither?
Thanks,
Paul Baran
jeanette
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 02:03:55 GMT, ba...@pigeon.com (Paul Baran) wrote:
>What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>neither?
Noon is 12 p.m. Midnight is 12 a.m. (at least according to my VCR)
This is why we say 12:30 p.m. is afternoon.
Jeanette
Alan J. Flavell
In article <51ai8p$9...@ruby.hknet.com>, ba...@pigeon.com (Paul Baran) writes:
>What is the correct way of stating noon?
"The" correct way? "Noon", "Midday", "12 noon", "12:00" [by the 24hour
clock], etc., would all be correct ways of stating it.
> Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m.
No. 12:00 is neither before nor after noon.
--
Alan
Brought to you by fully refurbished pre-owned electrons.
Jorvik Jim
It has always been my understanding that a.m. stands for ante
meridian (before midday) and p.m. stands for post meridian (after midday).
Therefore noon should be 12:00 m. (at midday). The logical conclusion is
that 12:00 p.m. indicates midnight -- 12 hours after midday. (Perhaps
12:00 a.m. also indicates midnight -- 12 hours before midday?)
Jim Thorpe
~~~~~~~~~~
That's Jorvik Jim -- NOT Indian Jim!
Steve Ketcham
> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
> neither?
Neither. Noon is 12 M.
Think about it. AM is "ante meridiem" - before noon. PM is "post
meridiem" - after noon. Noon, then, is M. It's not uncommon to find this
usage in nineteenth century texts.
For the last century, though, people have been showing up twelve hours late
for appointments made at 12 M. These are, for the most part, the same
people who pour inflammable liquids on a fire in an attempt to extinguish
it. So modern usage generates the question you asked, and the correct
answer is still unclear.
I strongly prefer to use "Noon" for noon. It's the same number of
characters as "12 AM" or "12 PM" (without the space) and it has the
advantage of being unambiguous.
Steve
--
Steve Ketcham Steve_...@stratus.com
Principal Performance Analyst Phone: (508) 460-2807
Stratus Computer, Inc
55 Fairbanks Blvd
Marlboro, MA 01757
Cissy . Thorpe
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Paul Baran wrote:
> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
> neither?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Baran
>
>
Just m. it is the meridian - neither ante nor post
Cissy
Max Crittenden
> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
> neither?
a.m. stands for 'ante meridiem', 'before noon'.
p.m. stands for 'post meridiem', 'after noon'.
So obviously noon is neither a.m. nor p.m. Unfortunately, that doesn't
stop ignorant people from using '12:00 a.m.' or '12:00 p.m.' to mean noon,
although either one could conceivably be construed to mean midnight.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Max Crittenden Na eúxesai va 'vai makrúc o drómoc...
Menlo Park, California --Kabáfnc
Bob Cunningham
Steve_...@stratus.com (Steve Ketcham) wrote:
>In article <51ai8p$9...@ruby.hknet.com>, ba...@pigeon.com (Paul Baran)
>wrote:
>
>> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>> neither?
>
>Neither. Noon is 12 M.
>
>Think about it. AM is "ante meridiem" - before noon. PM is "post
>meridiem" - after noon. Noon, then, is M. It's not uncommon to find this
>usage in nineteenth century texts.
I haven't seen that usage. Unless I were alerted to pay careful
attention I would automatically assume that "12 M." means "12 midnight".
This whole topic is a non-problem, except in one special
circumstance. I don't think any sensible person would say "12 a.m." or
"12 p.m." and expect to be certainly understood. I think most people
say "noon" and "midnight", although some might use the redundant "12
noon" and "12 midnight".
The one special case where the problem must be faced is in
programming a VCR. If I want to program something to end at midnight,
the machine insists that I say whether I mean a.m. or p.m., and it won't
budge till I make up my mind. If I give the wrong answer the machine
will try to record for 12 hours more than I intend, probably writing
over things on the tape I wanted to save.
To be on the safe side, guarding against the possibility that I
only think I remember which is which, I enter "12:01 a.m.". (This also
provides tolerance for the VCR clock not being set to precisely the
correct time of day.)
If logic governed, we might have a system in which noon could be
either 12:00 a.m. or 00:00 p.m. and midnight could be either 12:00 p.m.
or 00:00 a.m.. Then three minutes past midnight would be nothing but
00:03 a.m., and three minutes past noon would be 00:03 p.m..
Rufus Jefferson Jones
PM !
On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 02:03:55 GMT, ba...@pigeon.com (Paul Baran) wrote:
>What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>neither?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul Baran
>
>
>
>
-------------------
SIGNATURE BEGIN
--------------------
I'm (AM) in da (THE) house yall (EVERYONE).!
NASA NEWS:Nasa found a pollished fossilised TURD on mars!
This means that one of the following people or things MUST have
visited MARS in the past
1. Vets
2. Pope
3. Republicans (male/female)
4. Rush Limbaugh
5. Your Mother (Directed to the person reading this sig.)
TRUTHS!
1 No matter how much you try, you cannot pollish a turd!
2 "Bake a Pie, Eat A pie"
END SIGNATURE.....
G. Michael Paine
> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
> neither?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Baran
Paul
12 Noon is 12 p.m. and 12 Midnight is 12 a.m.
But, as you can see you are getting conflicting thoughts on this matter.
Regards,
Michael
--
Michael Paine
g...@lamg.com
Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens.
N.R. Mitchum
Jorvik Jim wrote:
------------
> It has always been my understanding that a.m. stands for ante
> meridian (before midday) and p.m. stands for post meridian (after midday).
>
I'm another one who invariably says "meridian" ... even though the word,
in all strictitude, should be "meridiem."
(Is that Jorvik as in Viking York -- and is it therefore pronounced "Yim"?)
Nathan Mitchum, pronounced "John Updike"
[post&email]
Heather Keith
In general usage (I'm not saying it makes sense, mind you) 12 a.m. is
midnight, and 12 p.m. is noon. My watch switches over to p.m. at noon,
in any case.
This message has been brought to you by:
Heather Keith
Carnegie Mellon University
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~hkeith/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello, my name is Yog-Sothoth, and I'll be your eldritch horror today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
In article <323990d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cunningham) writes:
> Steve_...@stratus.com (Steve Ketcham) wrote:
>
>>In article <51ai8p$9...@ruby.hknet.com>, ba...@pigeon.com (Paul Baran)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>>> neither?
>>
Deletion
>
> If logic governed, we might have a system in which noon could be
> either 12:00 a.m. or 00:00 p.m. and midnight could be either 12:00 p.m.
> or 00:00 a.m.. Then three minutes past midnight would be nothing but
> 00:03 a.m., and three minutes past noon would be 00:03 p.m..
There is a long history of indicating this by saying
12 N for noon
12 M for midnight.
I can't remember when or where I learned this, but I believe it was in ham
radio transmissions.
--
Nyal Z. Williams
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu
N.R. Mitchum
Bob Cunningham wrote:
------------
> [...] I think most people
> say "noon" and "midnight", although some might use the redundant "12
> noon" and "12 midnight".
It's redundant only if you interpret noon to mean 12 o'clock on the dot.
"I always eat at noon" can hardly mean that. Or "midnight snack" for that
matter. There are other phrases that similarly nail down the time: "They
shot it out at high noon"; "The witches gathered on the stroke of midnight."
Twelve O'Clock Low,
Nathan Mitchum
tom collins
If the time of day is not clear from the situation, I say an
write:
"12 noon" or "midnight"
Tom Collins
David Wright
ba...@pigeon.com (Paul Baran) wrote:
>What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>neither?
>Thanks,
>Paul Baran
If you see the "12 o'clock" times referred to in a newspaper that uses
AP style, they will be called "noon" and "midnight."
David
Daan Sandee
In article <323990d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cunningham) writes:
[original question:]
>>In article <51ai8p$9...@ruby.hknet.com>, ba...@pigeon.com (Paul Baran)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>>> neither?
>
> This whole topic is a non-problem, except in one special
>circumstance. I don't think any sensible person would say "12 a.m." or
>say "noon" and "midnight", although some might use the redundant "12
>noon" and "12 midnight".
>
>programming a VCR. If I want to program something to end at midnight,
>the machine insists that I say whether I mean a.m. or p.m., and it won't
>budge till I make up my mind. If I give the wrong answer the machine
>will try to record for 12 hours more than I intend, probably writing
>over things on the tape I wanted to save.
Excellent point. In normal, everyday speech, there is no problem.
Everyone says "noon" or "midnight", if necesary, to avoid ambiguity.
The problem arises when you are forced to interact with a stupid
computer program, like the one in a VCR ; and that may well have been
the original poster's problem.
The problem is a bit more common than just VCRs, though. For instance,
the appointment editor that I am occasionally forced to use (there are
more reasons why I hate the thing), thinks in a.m. and p.m., and when I
want to schedule a meeting from 11 to 12, I have to think hard which of
the two options on the menu I have to pick for the end time.
Of course, in the real world, we use a 24-hour clock, and we regard the
use of a.m. and p.m. in computer programs as being on the same level of
cultural progress as shillings, pence, miles, gallons, furlongs, chains,
gills, donkey traffic, witch doctors, child marriage, and banknotes all
of the same size and color. Luckily, the better operating systems now
provide a 24-hour clock by default.
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA san...@think.com
Daan Sandee
use of a.m. and p.m. in computer programs, airline schedules, and railroad
timetables as being on the same level of cultural progress as shillings,
pence, miles, gallons, furlongs, chains, gills, donkey traffic, witch
doctors, child marriage, and banknotes all of the same size and color.
Luckily, the better operating systems now provide a 24-hour clock by
default.
Daan "not to mention decimal points" Sandee
Burlington, MA san...@think.com
Jonathan Lundell
> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
> neither?
[snipped: observations that noon is neither am nor pm, but that VCRs, for
example, insist on the choice of one or the other.]
I've found a simple & logical way to remember what the VCR wants, and
generally avoid confusing myself about 12 am vs 12 pm.
Consider that a minute after noon is indisputably 12:01 pm, and for that
matter a second after would be 12:00:01 pm. It makes best sense to let
12:00:00 have the same am/pm sense as the rest of the 12:xx:xx hour, so
make noon 12 pm.
Still, when circumstances permit, I'd certainly prefer "12 noon", or just
"noon", to "12 pm". And yes, a 24-hour clock is nicely unambiguous.
--
Jonathan Lundell
jlun...@resilience.com
Stuart R. Leichter
In article <1996Sep13...@orion.bsuvc.bsu.edu>,
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu wrote:
> In article <323990d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, exw...@ix.netcom.com
(Bob Cunningham) writes:
> > Steve_...@stratus.com (Steve Ketcham) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <51ai8p$9...@ruby.hknet.com>, ba...@pigeon.com (Paul Baran)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
> >>> neither?
> >>
> >>Neither. Noon is 12 M.
[clip]
> There is a long history of indicating this by saying
> 12 N for noon
> 12 M for midnight.
Bus, train, etc. schedules use 12:00 p.m. to mean noontime.
Many students (young persons acquiring a literary consciousness) write
"12:00 a.m." or "12:00 p.m." without knowing about the meridian. When
questioned, invariably they translate "a.m." as "after morning" and "p.m."
as "I dunno." Go figure.
--
Stuart R. Leichter
Christopher Monsour
In article <jlundell-ya023080...@nntp.best.com>,
Jonathan Lundell <jlun...@resilience.com> wrote:
>In article <51eft7$4...@bone.think.com>, san...@think.com (Daan Sandee) wrote:
>
>> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>> neither?
>Consider that a minute after noon is indisputably 12:01 pm, and for that
>matter a second after would be 12:00:01 pm. It makes best sense to let
>12:00:00 have the same am/pm sense as the rest of the 12:xx:xx hour, so
>make noon 12 pm.
Furthermore, custom accounts the instant of midnight as the first instant of
a new 24-hour day, rather than as the last of an old. Thus, midnight really
is _ante meridiem_. Since midnight is 12 a.m., we might as well call
noon 12 p.m.
--Christopher J. Monsour
Daan Sandee
In article <DxqMy...@midway.uchicago.edu> mons...@ford.uchicago.edu (Christopher Monsour) writes:
>In article <jlundell-ya023080...@nntp.best.com>,
>Jonathan Lundell <jlun...@resilience.com> wrote:
>>In article <51eft7$4...@bone.think.com>, san...@think.com (Daan Sandee) wrote:
>>
>>> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>>> neither?
Please check your editing. I did not write that, and I resemble your
mistribution.
(further problems of ikosikaitessaresly challenged people deleted.)
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of Paul Baran <ba...@pigeon.com> created this
pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>neither?
I've seen various answers stating and explaining that it is neither.
However in practice the term "noon" usually refers to an approximate
time. If you really wanted to refer to 12:00:00.0000000000000... then
"noon" would be the most concise way of saying it. Otherwise (and
usually), "p.m." is conventional, and consistent with other times
starting "12".
Next question. When is "midnight on Tuesday"?
Regards, Mike.
--
Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
This week's hot tips for the lottery: 12, 14, 23, 32, 38, 34.
Ken West
In article <DxqMy...@midway.uchicago.edu>, mons...@ford.uchicago.edu
(Christopher Monsour) wrote:
> In article <jlundell-ya023080...@nntp.best.com>,
> Jonathan Lundell <jlun...@resilience.com> wrote:
> >In article <51eft7$4...@bone.think.com>, san...@think.com (Daan Sandee) wrote:
> >> neither?
> >Consider that a minute after noon is indisputably 12:01 pm, and for that
> >matter a second after would be 12:00:01 pm. It makes best sense to let
> >12:00:00 have the same am/pm sense as the rest of the 12:xx:xx hour, so
> >make noon 12 pm.
> Furthermore, custom accounts the instant of midnight as the first instant of
> a new 24-hour day, rather than as the last of an old. Thus, midnight really
> is _ante meridiem_. Since midnight is 12 a.m., we might as well call
> noon 12 p.m.
Logical. Still, ambiguous enought that most legal situations, like
executions, specify 12:01 AM to indicate the start of the day, clearly not
trusting 12:00 AM/PM.
regards,
Ken West
Bob Cunningham
san...@think.com (Daan Sandee) wrote:
>In article <DxqMy...@midway.uchicago.edu>
> mons...@ford.uchicago.edu (Christopher Monsour) writes:
>>In article <jlundell-ya023080...@nntp.best.com>,
>>Jonathan Lundell <jlun...@resilience.com> wrote:
>>>In article <51eft7$4...@bone.think.com>, san...@think.com (Daan Sandee) wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>>>> neither?
>
>Please check your editing. I did not write that, and I resemble your
>mistribution.
>
Cases of mistribution (by the way, shouldn't that be
"misattrition"?) are common in Usenet, but this case is different.
Usually when someone complains about being misquoted, a count of ">"s
shows that he or she was not. In this case, however, the count shows
that Daan Sandee is clearly quoted as asking the questions.
Tracing back though the thread, though, it turns out that
Christopher Monsour was not the culprit. He quoted what he found in
Jonathan Lundell's posting, and it was in Jonathan Lundell's posting
that the misattribution originally occurred.
The message to which Jonathan Lundell responded was from Daan
Sandee, and it had:
#In article <323990d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> exw...@ix.netcom.com
#(Bob Cunningham) writes:
# [original question:]
#|> >In article <51ai8p$9...@ruby.hknet.com>, ba...@pigeon.com (Paul
#Baran)
#|> >wrote:
#|> >
#|> >> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m.
#or
#|> >> neither?
In his response Jonathan Lundell had (apparently after the
expenditure of some effort):
#In article <51eft7$4...@bone.think.com>, san...@think.com (Daan Sandee)
#wrote:
#> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
#> neither?
>(further problems of ikosikaitessaresly challenged people deleted.)
Yeah. What he said.
Jonathan Lundell
>In article <DxqMy...@midway.uchicago.edu> mons...@ford.uchicago.edu
(Christopher Monsour) writes:
>>In article <jlundell-ya023080...@nntp.best.com>,
>>Jonathan Lundell <jlun...@resilience.com> wrote:
>>>In article <51eft7$4...@bone.think.com>, san...@think.com (Daan Sandee) wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>>>> neither?
>
>Please check your editing. I did not write that, and I resemble your
>mistribution.
>
Indeed; I apologize.
--
Jonathan Lundell
jlun...@resilience.com
Kullervo Nurmi
san...@think.com (Daan Sandee) wrote:
[snip]
>
>Of course, in the real world, we use a 24-hour clock, and we regard the
>use of a.m. and p.m. in computer programs, airline schedules, and railroad
>timetables as being on the same level of cultural progress as shillings,
>pence, miles, gallons, furlongs, chains, gills, donkey traffic, witch
>doctors, child marriage, and banknotes all of the same size and color.
>Luckily, the better operating systems now provide a 24-hour clock by
>default.
>
I did not know how fortunate we really are living in the Real
World(tm) until I stumbled over these fossil remains in MS Windows
NT...
In the Print Manager of that OS there is a selection for the operating
(or availability) hours for a printer, and it's in a.m. - p.m.
notation.
I finally figured out the oddest thing about the 12 hour clock -- you
_do_not_ reset the counter at noon or at midnight. The system would
be logical if those were the two reset moments, start with 00:01 after
12:00, but no, you go to 12:59 _and_ then jump to 1:00. Oh Bog!
I'm still not sure when our printers will operate...
--Kultsi
---
The space below is reserved for the .sig of
kullerv...@pp.inet.fi
http://www.inet.fi/koti/nurmku-1.html
No parking allowed
---
Jonathan Lundell
>Next question. When is "midnight on Tuesday"?
>
Generalizing from my own case to the entire English-speaking world (a
time-honored custom in a.u.e), it would ordinarily be taken to be the end
of Tuesday; that is, "midnight on Tuesday" is part of "Tuesday night"
rather than "Wednesday morning" or "Tuesday morning". [I here acknowledge
that "midnight" may be interpreted as the timeless boundary between two
days. Pooh.]
The use of midnight to separate days is, of course arbitrary, though not so
arbitrary as midnight 31 Dec to separate years.
--
Jonathan Lundell
jlun...@resilience.com
Devdas Nandan
I have seen the same concept being used in legal contracts such as an
insurance policy which becomes effective at 12:01 am of the specified day.
In face, I've heard a story about an insurance company losing a legal
battle simply because of the fact that the contract specified 12:00 am and
experts in the matter testified that such a point in time does not exist!
In normal writing, I either simply use "noon" or "midnight" or write
12:00 without an am/pm designation.
ken...@lglobal.com (Ken West) wrote:
>In article <DxqMy...@midway.uchicago.edu>, mons...@ford.uchicago.edu
>(Christopher Monsour) wrote:
>> In article <jlundell-ya023080...@nntp.best.com>,
>> Jonathan Lundell <jlun...@resilience.com> wrote:
>> >In article <51eft7$4...@bone.think.com>, san...@think.com (Daan Sandee) wrote:
>> >> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>> >> neither?
Cissy . Thorpe
On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Mike Barnes wrote:
> The dancing digits of Paul Baran <ba...@pigeon.com> created this
> pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
> >What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
> >neither?
>
> I've seen various answers stating and explaining that it is neither.
> However in practice the term "noon" usually refers to an approximate
> time. If you really wanted to refer to 12:00:00.0000000000000... then
> "noon" would be the most concise way of saying it. Otherwise (and
> usually), "p.m." is conventional, and consistent with other times
> starting "12".
>
> Next question. When is "midnight on Tuesday"?
>
> Regards, Mike.
>
> --
>
> Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
> This week's hot tips for the lottery: 12, 14, 23, 32, 38, 34.
>
>
Going back to the orginal question....the correct way of stating (i.e.
writing) 12:00 noon is neither a.m. nor p.m. It is just m. (or M) because
noon is the meridian.
Cissy
Mike Oliver
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> In article <t41vTEAC...@exodus.co.uk>, news-r...@exodus.co.uk wrote:
>>Next question. When is "midnight on Tuesday"?
> Generalizing from my own case to the entire English-speaking world
> (a time-honored custom in a.u.e), it would ordinarily be taken to be
> the end of Tuesday; that is, "midnight on Tuesday" is part of "Tuesday
> night" rather than "Wednesday morning" or "Tuesday morning".
I'd go farther than this. 4 o'clock Wednesday morning is *also*
Tuesday night. Wednesday morning doesn't start until you've slept,
gotten up, had a shower and a coffee.
Douglas R. Chester
Mike Barnes <mi...@exodus.co.uk> wrote in article
<t41vTEAC...@exodus.co.uk>...
> If you really wanted to refer to 12:00:00.0000000000000... then
> "noon" would be the most concise way of saying it. Otherwise (and
> usually), "p.m." is conventional, and consistent with other times
> starting "12".
>
> Next question. When is "midnight on Tuesday"?
Depends on the context. If one is working the `swing shift' from four to
midnight, then midnight is the end of Tuesday. This might be written as
"4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m." or shortened to "4-12 p.m. The next shift will be
Wednesday's early shift which will work from midnight to eight.
A party might be said to begin at eight o'clock and last until midnight.
If I say that an event is expected to occur between eleven and twelve p. m.
Tuesday night I mean, of course during the final hour of the day. On the
other hand, if I were to say that I heard a noise during the night sometime
after midnight, I mean since the beginning of the day.
If something is scheduled to go into effect at midnight on Tuesday, the
begining of Tuesday is probably what is meant and could be written as 12
a.m., Tuesday. To avoid confusion it might be best to write something like
"midnight, Sept. 16/17, 1996".
All of this is handled neatly when 24 hour time is used. In the military
the first watch of the day is from 0000 to 0400 (midnight to 4 a.m.) and
the last watch is from 2000 to 2400 (8 p.m. to midnight).
Rainer Thonnes
In article <Pine.SOL.3.94.96091...@peach.epix.net>,
Jorvik Jim <jth...@peach.epix.net> writes:
>
> It has always been my understanding that a.m. stands for ante
> meridian (before midday) and p.m. stands for post meridian (after midday).
That is so, except that in both cases it should be "meridiem", I believe.
> Therefore noon should be 12:00 m. (at midday). The logical conclusion is
> that 12:00 p.m. indicates midnight -- 12 hours after midday. (Perhaps
> 12:00 a.m. also indicates midnight -- 12 hours before midday?)
Unfortunately this form of reasoning, logical though it is, fails to chime
with established usage, since otherwise "10:15 am" would indicate what is
commonly referred to as "1:45 am".
It seems sensible to let 12pm be one minute before 12:01pm, and it also seems
sensible for 12:01pm to be one minute after noon, provided we consider "am"
and "pm" as dividing the 24-hour day into two halves separated by the moments
of noon and midnight. It would make much more sense, of course, if we were
to think of 12 as meaning 0.
tom collins
san...@think.com (Daan Sandee) wrote:
>Of course, in the real world, we use a 24-hour clock, and we regard the
>use of a.m. and p.m. in computer programs, airline schedules, and railroad
>timetables as being on the same level of cultural progress as shillings,
>pence, miles, gallons, furlongs, chains, gills, donkey traffic, witch
>doctors, child marriage, and banknotes all of the same size and color.
>Luckily, the better operating systems now provide a 24-hour clock by
>default.
>
>Daan "not to mention decimal points" Sandee
>Burlington, MA san...@think.com
This is progress? To lose contact with the sun, the earth, and
the cycles of nature...this is progress? Netizen, turn off thy
machine and commune with the sun and the stars. You may find
that your "progress" is not all that you make it out to be.
Tom Collins
On a starless night from the near-North.
>
>
M. Murray
Jonathan Lundell (jlun...@resilience.com) wrote:
:
: I've found a simple & logical way to remember what the VCR wants, and
: generally avoid confusing myself about 12 am vs 12 pm.
: Consider that a minute after noon is indisputably 12:01 pm, and for that
: matter a second after would be 12:00:01 pm. It makes best sense to let
: 12:00:00 have the same am/pm sense as the rest of the 12:xx:xx hour, so
: make noon 12 pm.
One minute after noon is indisputably 0:01 pm, but the illogicallity of
the am/pm system is compounded by calling it 12:01 pm, which logically is
12 hours and one minute post meridiem, i.e. 1 minute after midnight.
The whole nonsense is avoided, as somebody already pointed out, by using
the 24 hour clock with its 0:01/12:01 type usage. Notice that in a
well-ordered system like the Deutsche Bundesbahn, trains arriving at
midnight do so at 24:00, but trains departing at midnight do so at 0:00 on
the next day.
Incidentally, do VCR's in the USA only use the 12 hour clock, and require
am/pm as people suggest? I'm sure that anywhere else in the world they
are changeable to the 24 hour clock.
--
Martin Murray :: School of Chemistry, Bristol University, BS8 1TS, England
kw...@iap.net.au
Cissy . Thorpe wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Paul Baran wrote:
>
> > What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
> > neither?
> >
> >
> > Paul Baran
> >
> >
> Just m. it is the meridian - neither ante nor post
>
> Cissy
12pm,
ken
H Andrew Chuang
In article <DxxGr...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, M. Murray <co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Incidentally, do VCR's in the USA only use the 12 hour clock, and require
>am/pm as people suggest? I'm sure that anywhere else in the world they
>are changeable to the 24 hour clock.
>
Almost all US air carriers use A.M./P.M. for their schedules (United being
the lone exception that I'm aware of). Schedules using the 24-hour clock
are fairly standard for airlines outside the US. I think the same apply
to trains and buses.
Truly Donovan
M. Murray wrote:
>
> Incidentally, do VCR's in the USA only use the 12 hour clock, and require
> am/pm as people suggest?
Inasmuch as TV Guide (the most widely circulated magazine in the country)
uses a 12-hour clock, it would be foolhardy for a VCR manufacturer to
produce a programmable interface that did not offer a 12-hour clock. Do
you think Americans would sit still for having to add 12 to the number in
the TV Guide to program their VCRs?
Truly Donovan
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of "M. Murray" <co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk> created this
pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>One minute after noon is indisputably 0:01 pm, but the illogicallity of
>the am/pm system is compounded by calling it 12:01 pm, which logically is
>12 hours and one minute post meridiem, i.e. 1 minute after midnight.
I dispute your "indisputably". To me 12:01 pm does not mean "12 hours
and one minute post meridiem", it means "the 12:01 that's post
meridiem", as opposed to the other "12:01" that's ante meridiem.
I see nothing illogical about am/pm. It's inconvenient in the digital
age, but not illogical.
>Notice that in a
>well-ordered system like the Deutsche Bundesbahn, trains arriving at
>midnight do so at 24:00, but trains departing at midnight do so at 0:00 on
>the next day.
Also Italian no parking signs that apply 24 hours a day have a blue/red
"no parking" symbol with the legend "0h-24h".
Kai Henningsen
exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cunningham) wrote on 13.09.96 in <323990d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>:
> If logic governed, we might have a system in which noon could be
> either 12:00 a.m. or 00:00 p.m. and midnight could be either 12:00 p.m.
> or 00:00 a.m.. Then three minutes past midnight would be nothing but
> 00:03 a.m., and three minutes past noon would be 00:03 p.m..
If logic governed, you'd use a 24 hour clock.
Kai
--
Internet: k...@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
Paul Bogrow
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>M. Murray wrote:
>>
>> Incidentally, do VCR's in the USA only use the 12 hour clock, and require
>> am/pm as people suggest?
Yes, and damn easy to screw up on that account, thank you very much. But
then there's the popular "VCR+" system, in which each broadcast's listing
includes an obscurely-generated numerical code that, when programmed into
the VCR, generates the data needed to record the proper channel between
the proper times.
Paul Yuhun
M. Murray wrote:
> One minute after noon is indisputably 0:01 pm, but the illogicallity of
> the am/pm system is compounded by calling it 12:01 pm, which logically is
> 12 hours and one minute post meridiem, i.e. 1 minute after midnight.
>
I agree with Martin.
12 midnight should be written as 0.00 am.
12 noon should be written as 0.00 pm.
In the twelve-hour system there is no such thing as 12.01 am (or pm).
Paul Yuhun
Cissy . Thorpe
On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.SOL.3.91.960916...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu>, "Cissy .
> Thorpe" <cth...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu> wrote:
>
> > Going back to the orginal question....the correct way of stating (i.e.
> > writing) 12:00 noon is neither a.m. nor p.m. It is just m. (or M) because
> > noon is the meridian.
>
> Noon is not the meridian; noon is the meridies. The imaginary line from
> the North Pole to the South Pole is the meridian.
>
> And saying noon is 12:00 m. is a sure way to invite confusion - is it
> "meridies" or "midnight"?
>
> -Aaron J. Dinkin
> Dr. Whom
>
Not according to my Webster - the second def is the line you mention.
meridian's first def is actually archaic for the hour of noon.
And if you know that, then no, 12:00 m. is not confused with midnight. In
all my considerable years as clerk/typist/secretary/assistant, I have
never had anyone show up at midnight when I wrote "... will begin at
12:00 m."
But the whole point is: 12:00 m. is the correct way to write 12:00 noon.
Cissy
N.R. Mitchum
Kai Henningsen wrote:
------------
> If logic governed, you'd use a 24 hour clock.
No, if "logic" governed, you'd probably use a 10-hour clock, each hour
divided into ten units, and each of these ten divided into a hundred.
You would, but I wouldn't.
NM [post&email]
Hugh W. Stewart
<snip>
Alaska Airlines used to have a daily "midnight" flight from Fairbanks
to Seattle. The scheduled time was 11:59 PM, so that there would be
no ambiguity.
Jon Robert Crofoot
Devdas Nandan <DNa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I have seen the same concept being used in legal contracts such as an
>insurance policy which becomes effective at 12:01 am of the specified day.
> In face, I've heard a story about an insurance company losing a legal
>battle simply because of the fact that the contract specified 12:00 am and
>experts in the matter testified that such a point in time does not exist!
> In normal writing, I either simply use "noon" or "midnight" or write
>12:00 without an am/pm designation.
>
>ken...@lglobal.com (Ken West) wrote:
>>In article <DxqMy...@midway.uchicago.edu>, mons...@ford.uchicago.edu
>>(Christopher Monsour) wrote:
>>> In article <jlundell-ya023080...@nntp.best.com>,
>>> Jonathan Lundell <jlun...@resilience.com> wrote:
>>> >> What is the correct way of stating noon? Is it 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. or
>>> >> neither?
>>> >Consider that a minute after noon is indisputably 12:01 pm, and for that
>>> >matter a second after would be 12:00:01 pm. It makes best sense to let
>>> >12:00:00 have the same am/pm sense as the rest of the 12:xx:xx hour, so
>>> >make noon 12 pm.
>>> a new 24-hour day, rather than as the last of an old. Thus, midnight really
>>> is _ante meridiem_. Since midnight is 12 a.m., we might as well call
>>> noon 12 p.m.
>>
>>Logical. Still, ambiguous enought that most legal situations, like
>>executions, specify 12:01 AM to indicate the start of the day, clearly not
>>trusting 12:00 AM/PM.
>>
But not logical enough. As it has been abundantly
pointed out in this thread, both 12 AM and 12 PM are so
ambiguous as to be dangerously useless. And with good
reason: noon and midnight are neither ante nor post, but
are the infinitesimal dividers of ante and post.
I suggest that noon and midnight have their owm notation,
perhaps "12N" and "12M", respectively. This would work for
English; ISO standards might require something like "12+"
and "12-".
Or we can all grit our teeth and use the "zero hundred
hours" and "twelve hundred hours" terminology.
Dene Bebbington
Ostensibly there is, since in the 12 hour system people do actually use
such notation. That it doesn't seem to make sense when written down is
another matter, however, when we look at a wristwatch or clock one can
see where this usage may have originated.
--
Dene Bebbington
"... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
H Andrew Chuang
In article <6HGxe...@khms.westfalen.de>,
Kai Henningsen <k...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>
>That's "the decimal system", not "logic", even if I do agree that decimal
>is nice.
>
>Hmm. You'd thus divide the day into 10,000 units, which makes each unit
>8.64 seconds long.
>
This is a very poor argument. A second is an arbitrary unit, just like a
meter and a yard.
Kai Henningsen
aj...@lafn.lafn.org (N.R. Mitchum) wrote on 19.09.96 in <3241DB...@mail.lafn.org>:
> Kai Henningsen wrote:
> ------------
> > If logic governed, you'd use a 24 hour clock.
> >.........
>
> No, if "logic" governed, you'd probably use a 10-hour clock, each hour
> divided into ten units, and each of these ten divided into a hundred.
That's "the decimal system", not "logic", even if I do agree that decimal
is nice.
Hmm. You'd thus divide the day into 10,000 units, which makes each unit
8.64 seconds long.
> You would, but I wouldn't.
I probably wouln't, either. Doesn't seem useful.
Now, if either you go SI and divide the day simply into 86,400 seconds, or
else change SI and divide into 100,000 parts. this might be useful - *if*
it was adopted by enough people. (A slight variation of the first actually
was successful. Unix uses seconds since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 GMT.)
Fortunately, the 24 hour clock above *was* adopted by enough people (most
of them, actually).
MfG Kai
M. Murray
Mike Barnes (mi...@exodus.co.uk) wrote:
: The dancing digits of "M. Murray" <co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk> created this
: pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
: >One minute after noon is indisputably 0:01 pm, but the illogicallity of
: >12 hours and one minute post meridiem, i.e. 1 minute after midnight.
:
: and one minute post meridiem", it means "the 12:01 that's post
: meridiem", as opposed to the other "12:01" that's ante meridiem.
There is no confusion about when 0:01 pm is (more correctly, there wouldn't
be if people used the expression). Instead, you seem to be challenging my
"logically" re 12:01 pm.
:
: I see nothing illogical about am/pm. It's inconvenient in the digital
: age, but not illogical.
What is illogical is the failure to use 0:01 instead of 12:01. It's like
saying 1:01 is 0:61.
N.R. Mitchum
Kai Henningsen wrote:
----------
> > No, if "logic" governed, you'd probably use a 10-hour clock, each hour
> > divided into ten units, and each of these ten divided into a hundred.
>
> That's "the decimal system", not "logic", even if I do agree that decimal
> is nice.
I placed the word between quotation marks deliberately, though my
reasons will appear obvious only to myself. In truth I don't really
believe in the possibility of any ultimate "logic"; everything we give
that name fails, always and inevitably, to live up to its promise.
All logic is human; therefore all logic is defective and open to
perpetual re-dedifinition ... rather like human languages. (Am I
being too logical, and therefore reasoning illogically?)
Logic-in-quotes might lead some dopes to conclude that, since
decimals are mathematically more efficient, the world ought to forced
onto a 10-hour clock.
-----------
> Hmm. You'd thus divide the day into 10,000 units, which makes each
> unit 8.64 seconds long.
>...........
Not me. I didn't even bother to multiply and divide numbers when I
produced this silly system. So, if you like, you can throw in another
10 or 100.
Now I've made my head hurt.
Nathan Mitchum [post&email]
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of "M. Murray" <co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk> created this
pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>Mike Barnes (mi...@exodus.co.uk) wrote:
>: The dancing digits of "M. Murray" <co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk> created this
>: pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>: >One minute after noon is indisputably 0:01 pm, but the illogicallity of
>: >the am/pm system is compounded by calling it 12:01 pm, which logically is
>: >12 hours and one minute post meridiem, i.e. 1 minute after midnight.
>:
>: I dispute your "indisputably". To me 12:01 pm does not mean "12 hours
>: and one minute post meridiem", it means "the 12:01 that's post
>: meridiem", as opposed to the other "12:01" that's ante meridiem.
>
>There is no confusion about when 0:01 pm is
True, but there's no need to repeat yourself when I haven't contradicted
you. It only causes confusion.
>(more correctly, there wouldn't
>be if people used the expression).
That qualification is probably unnecessary.
>Instead, you seem to be challenging my
>"logically" re 12:01 pm.
No, I wasn't challenging your "logically", I was challenging your
"indisputably". I thought I'd made that fairly clear in my first
sentence.
What I said, and you can check it above, is that there is another
logical way of interpreting "12:01 pm", and it happens to be the way I
interpret it, and it also happens to be accurate, unlike *your* logical
way.
To make things perfectly clear: "0:01 pm" is indisputably one minute
after noon; but one minute after noon is not indisputably "0:01 pm".
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of "N.R. Mitchum" <aj...@mail.lafn.org> created this
pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
> In truth I don't really
>believe in the possibility of any ultimate "logic"; everything we give
>that name fails, always and inevitably, to live up to its promise.
>All logic is human; therefore all logic is defective and open to
>perpetual re-dedifinition ... rather like human languages. (Am I
>being too logical, and therefore reasoning illogically?)
I would say that logic is totally reliable; it is only the human
definitions and applications of it that are fallible.
I Johnston
M. Murray (co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk) wrote:
: What is illogical is the failure to use 0:01 instead of 12:01. It's like
: saying 1:01 is 0:61.
So the hours go 12,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,1,.....? So what? There's
no logical reason for having twenty four hours in the day, or for giving
them numbers rather than names. That's just how it is.
Not all life is logical. That's why it's fun.
Relax.
Ian
Keith C. Ivey
co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (M. Murray) wrote:
>One minute after noon is indisputably 0:01 pm, but the
>illogicallity of the am/pm system is compounded by calling
>it 12:01 pm, which logically is 12 hours and one minute post
>meridiem, i.e. 1 minute after midnight.
Does that mean that "logically" 2 am is two hours ante meridiem
(what's usually known as 10 o'clock in the morning)? And of
course 11:59 am is one minute after midnight.
[posted and mailed]
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eei-alex.com/eye/>
N.R. Mitchum
Mike Barnes wrote:
-----------
> definitions and applications of it that are fallible.
Now this is turning into fun.
If you're serious about the above apothegm, you're telling us there
exists a Logic beyond human reason and definition; a Logic that, once
man attempts to apply it, eludes him; a Logic that cannot be defined,
discussed, or exercised, but can nonetheless be admired and invoked.
It sounds like the argument of either a mathematician or a theologian.
Neither:
Nathan Mitchum [post&email]
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of "N.R. Mitchum" <aj...@mail.lafn.org> created this
pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>-----------
>> I would say that logic is totally reliable; it is only the human
>> definitions and applications of it that are fallible.
>>...........
>
>Now this is turning into fun.
>
>If you're serious about the above apothegm,
[Slinks off to dictionary to look up "apothegm"]
Well, kind of. It was spur-of-the-moment thing rather than a deeply
held belief.
> you're telling us
>there
>exists a Logic beyond human reason and definition;
Yes, in that human logic is a vain attempt to grasp the real thing. One
could state this less emotionally by saying that that human logic is a
useful temporary model that is constantly being refined; often, but not
always, in the direction of The Truth :-).
I would extend this idea from logic to mathematics as a whole; or, at
least, to what I learned in school as mathematics - it's probably
expanded a bit by now. I suppose "natural law" is another way of
putting it.
>a Logic that, once
>man attempts to apply it, eludes him;
If the application works, it works. That doesn't mean that the human
logic is True, it simply means that the model is reasonably accurate in
all important (to us) respects.
Even where this model appears *perfect* we should not mistake it for
absolute truth. History is littered with scientific "truths" that
turned out to be mere approximations or even completely wrong. The
present is littered with them also.
>a Logic that cannot be defined,
>discussed, or exercised, but can nonetheless be admired and invoked.
Well, we *are* discussing it... I think. At least we can discuss the
possibility of its existence; but we can never know it when we see it.
I suppose it all boils down to whether you believe that the path of
human scientific thought over the ages is wandering around at random, or
whether there's something absolute that it's headed for, is usally
getting closer too, but will never reach. I believe the latter.
>It sounds like the argument of either a mathematician or a theologian.
>
>
>Neither:
>Nathan Mitchum [post&email]
Also neither.
ObUAE: I don't know any good language for expressing such ideas.
Hugh_P_Scott
Mike Barnes wrote:
>
>
> I would say that logic is totally reliable; it is only the human
> definitions and applications of it that are fallible.
>
Agreed - Logic is just the machine that takes premises in one end and
spits valid conclusions out the other. 10 or 12 or 24 'hour' days can all
be logically justified, depending on the premises (I like the decimal
approach, therefore we should have a ten hour day) (I like proper
fractions, therefore we'll have 24 hours in a day). And yes, I know I've
missed out lots of other premises required to make these examples work.
> Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
> This week's hot tips for the lottery: 12, 14, 23, 32, 38, 34.
--
The opinions expressed in this communication are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
Kai Henningsen
mi...@exodus.co.uk (Mike Barnes) wrote on 18.09.96 in <Mhp3VLAJ...@exodus.co.uk>:
> The dancing digits of "M. Murray" <co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk> created this
> pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
> >One minute after noon is indisputably 0:01 pm, but the illogicallity of
> >the am/pm system is compounded by calling it 12:01 pm, which logically is
> >12 hours and one minute post meridiem, i.e. 1 minute after midnight.
>
> I dispute your "indisputably". To me 12:01 pm does not mean "12 hours
> and one minute post meridiem", it means "the 12:01 that's post
> meridiem", as opposed to the other "12:01" that's ante meridiem.
>
> I see nothing illogical about am/pm. It's inconvenient in the digital
> age, but not illogical.
You see nothing illogical about 1:01 pm being one hour after 12:01 pm?
I hope I never have to rely on your logic, then.
Kai Henningsen
Chu...@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote on 21.09.96 in <521mgb$1...@herald.concentric.net>:
> In article <6HGxe...@khms.westfalen.de>,
> Kai Henningsen <k...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
> >
> >That's "the decimal system", not "logic", even if I do agree that decimal
> >is nice.
> >
> >Hmm. You'd thus divide the day into 10,000 units, which makes each unit
> >8.64 seconds long.
> >
>
> This is a very poor argument. A second is an arbitrary unit, just like a
> meter and a yard.
Actually, it's a fact, not an argument. For those, look at my next
paragraph.
Kai Henningsen
mi...@exodus.co.uk (Mike Barnes) wrote on 27.09.96 in <aZNybGAR...@exodus.co.uk>:
[ cutting ... ]
> The dancing digits of "N.R. Mitchum" <aj...@mail.lafn.org> created this
> pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
> > you're telling us
> >there
> >exists a Logic beyond human reason and definition;
>
> Yes, in that human logic is a vain attempt to grasp the real thing. One
> could state this less emotionally by saying that that human logic is a
> useful temporary model that is constantly being refined; often, but not
> always, in the direction of The Truth :-).
>
> I would extend this idea from logic to mathematics as a whole; or, at
> least, to what I learned in school as mathematics - it's probably
> expanded a bit by now. I suppose "natural law" is another way of
> putting it.
Ooops. Hold it right there.
You're one of the people confusing subjects like mathematics with subjects
like physics.
Physics is finding out about the "real world". Mathematics, on the other
hand, is completely independent of the "real world".
In physics, theories only hold until disproven.
In mathematics, theories are proven, and hold forever from that point.
If someone tells you that there's no way to get antigravity, then you may
well expect that we later learn this was not true.
If someone tells you that it's impossible to sqare a circle, no such
possibility exists.
Physics, like all other natural sciences, works from observations to
theories that predict further observations.
Mathematics, on the other hand, works from premises to conclusions via
proofs. Observations don't go into this anywhere, except to get ideas
perhaps.
Physics is about natural laws. Mathematics is not.
Physics is about the ability to predict the "real world". Mathematics is
about Truth, with a capital T.
There's no absolute truth in physics. There is in mathematics.
There is no "real world" in mathematics. There is in physics.
These two are completely different sciences. (And, IMO, logic is like
mathematics, not like physics.)
> Even where this model appears *perfect* we should not mistake it for
> absolute truth. History is littered with scientific "truths" that
> turned out to be mere approximations or even completely wrong. The
> present is littered with them also.
Don't confuse the model with the theory (and don't confuse a mathematical
theory with a physical theory, these are completely different critters).
The mathematical theory is right.
The physical theory is essentially "mathematical theory X applies here,
with the following mapping of real world observations to mathematical
entities". (This is essentially a description of a model.) It can be good
enough, or not. It might even be true, but we will never be able to say
for certain.
The mathematical theory is right, or wrong. Usually, we know which. And no
observations in the real world can change anything about that.
Such observations can, of course, disprove the physical theory.
> >It sounds like the argument of either a mathematician or a theologian.
> >
> >
> >Neither:
> >Nathan Mitchum [post&email]
>
> Also neither.
First one (not practicing, though :-))
Theology is significantly different, though: it's not possible to usefully
talk about theology without making reference to the "real world", just
like in physics. It *is* possible to do this in mathematics and logic - in
fact, it is usually done that way.
Simple example:
(x+y)*(x-y) = x*x - y*y
No reference to the "real world" there. (Of course, you'd really have to
reference this to a theory in which it is true (like number theory); but
that's often done by context, and in any case has no "real world"
references either.)
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of Kai Henningsen <k...@khms.westfalen.de> created
this pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>mi...@exodus.co.uk (Mike Barnes) wrote on 27.09.96 in <aZNybGARo4SyEwiK@exodus.c
>o.uk>:
>
>[ cutting ... ]
>
>> The dancing digits of "N.R. Mitchum" <aj...@mail.lafn.org> created this
>> pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>
>> > you're telling us
>> >there
>> >exists a Logic beyond human reason and definition;
>>
>> Yes, in that human logic is a vain attempt to grasp the real thing. One
>> could state this less emotionally by saying that that human logic is a
>> useful temporary model that is constantly being refined; often, but not
>> always, in the direction of The Truth :-).
>>
>> I would extend this idea from logic to mathematics as a whole; or, at
>> least, to what I learned in school as mathematics - it's probably
>> expanded a bit by now. I suppose "natural law" is another way of
>> putting it.
>
>Ooops. Hold it right there.
>
>You're one of the people confusing subjects like mathematics with subjects
>like physics.
>
>Physics is finding out about the "real world". Mathematics, on the other
>hand, is completely independent of the "real world".
>
>In physics, theories only hold until disproven.
>
>In mathematics, theories are proven, and hold forever from that point.
>
>
>Mathematics is
>about Truth, with a capital T.
I find myself guilty of diluting and weakening my original point by
attepting to explain it in terms that I am more familiar with. My
original assertion was...
>I would say that logic is totally reliable; it is only the human
>definitions and applications of it that are fallible.
You have done a much better job that I could (did!) in expanding on
that. Thanks.
Since you seem to be supporting my point of view it seems churlish to
argue with what you say, but I can't help myself...
As a layman I find it hard to accept your assertion that mathematics
*knows* that it is The Truth. The Truth of the matter is, you can never
rule out the possibility that at some future date your idea of The Truth
will be shown to be false, or at least incomplete/approximate. That
last sentence is, of course, subject to the same rule. There *is* no
absolute certainty, only relative certainty, even in mathematics. IMHO.
Regards, Mike.
--
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of Kai Henningsen <k...@khms.westfalen.de> created
this pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>o.uk>:
>
>> The dancing digits of "M. Murray" <co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk> created this
>> pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>> >One minute after noon is indisputably 0:01 pm, but the illogicallity of
>> >the am/pm system is compounded by calling it 12:01 pm, which logically is
>> >12 hours and one minute post meridiem, i.e. 1 minute after midnight.
>>
>> I dispute your "indisputably". To me 12:01 pm does not mean "12 hours
>> and one minute post meridiem", it means "the 12:01 that's post
>> meridiem", as opposed to the other "12:01" that's ante meridiem.
>>
>> I see nothing illogical about am/pm. It's inconvenient in the digital
>> age, but not illogical.
>
>You see nothing illogical about 1:01 pm being one hour after 12:01 pm?
I see nothing illogical about 1:01pm being one hour after 12:01pm. Look
at any analogue clock face and you'll see the logic.
>
>I hope I never have to rely on your logic, then.
>
You might already have relied on my logic, if you ever bought or used
any of the programs I've written.
Colin Fine
Somebody wrote:
>> > No, if "logic" governed, you'd probably use a 10-hour clock, each hour
>> > divided into ten units, and each of these ten divided into a hundred.
The French revolutionary committee tried it. I have seen a French
decimal clock in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. It appeared to
have 100 minutes to the hour, but I never worked out whether there were
10 or 20 hours to the day.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK |
| Tel: 01274 592696/0976 436109 e-mail: co...@kindness.demon.co.uk |
| "We're all in a box and the instructions for getting out |
| are on the outside" -K.B.Brown |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Engel
k...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
>You see nothing illogical about 1:01 pm being one hour after 12:01 pm?
>I hope I never have to rely on your logic, then.
There is nothing illogical about it. Further, there is nothing
illogical about 0:01 AM coming one hour after 11:01 PM. It may not use
the algorithm you are most comfortable with, but it is logical.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Engel Vector Angle
St...@The-Light.com lig...@onr.com
http://the-light.com http://www.onr.com/user/lights
Victor Engel
k...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
>No reference to the "real world" there. (Of course, you'd really have to
>reference this to a theory in which it is true (like number theory); but
>that's often done by context, and in any case has no "real world"
>references either.)
This is one of my pet peaves. Reference is not a verb, but I hear it
used that way a lot. In this paragraph, it is used as both a verb and
a noun.
Truly Donovan
Victor Engel wrote:
>
> k...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
>
> >No reference to the "real world" there. (Of course, you'd really have to
> >reference this to a theory in which it is true (like number theory); but
> >that's often done by context, and in any case has no "real world"
> >references either.)
>
> This is one of my pet peaves. Reference is not a verb, but I hear it
> used that way a lot. In this paragraph, it is used as both a verb and
> a noun.
"Reference" is indeed a verb. It means to include in something
references to something else. It simply shouldn't be used to mean "to
refer to." However, after 35 years, I've given up that fight.
--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1
Thomas M. Schenk, M.D.
Victor Engel wrote:
> This is one of my pet peaves. Reference is not a verb, but I hear it
> used that way a lot. In this paragraph, it is used as both a verb and
> a noun.
"peeves" :-)
(There is no safety from pedants on the net, and quarter is rarely
given).
Regards,
Tom
--
Thomas M. Schenk, M.D. "Do not go gentle into that
******************* good night. Rage, rage against
Laguna Beach, California the dying of the light."
-- Dylan Thomas
Victor Engel
"Thomas M. Schenk, M.D." <tsc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>One of my pet peaves is that dictionaries keep wanting to spell the word
>"peeves" :-)
Yeah, mine too. Well, it's good to throw in some humor every now and
then, or as a friend of mine says, "every twice in a while". Another
pet peave of mine is that you should put a period before the quote. I
guess that since I am a computer programmer, that really grates on my
nerves.
Victor Engel
Could you please use it in a sentence? For some reason, I'm having
difficulty picturing your definition.
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>Victor Engel wrote:
>>
>> k...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
>>
>> >No reference to the "real world" there. (Of course, you'd really have to
>> >reference this to a theory in which it is true (like number theory); but
>> >that's often done by context, and in any case has no "real world"
>> >references either.)
>>
>> This is one of my pet peaves. Reference is not a verb, but I hear it
>> used that way a lot. In this paragraph, it is used as both a verb and
>> a noun.
>"Reference" is indeed a verb. It means to include in something
>references to something else. It simply shouldn't be used to mean "to
>refer to." However, after 35 years, I've given up that fight.
>--
>Truly Donovan
>"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
>ISBN 0-13-216243-1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Thonnes
In article <6HjpM...@khms.westfalen.de>,
k...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> mi...@exodus.co.uk (Mike Barnes) wrote:
> > I dispute your "indisputably". To me 12:01 pm does not mean "12 hours
> > and one minute post meridiem", it means "the 12:01 that's post
> > meridiem", as opposed to the other "12:01" that's ante meridiem.
> >
> > I see nothing illogical about am/pm. It's inconvenient in the digital
> > age, but not illogical.
>
>
> I hope I never have to rely on your logic, then.
This is not a logic problem, it's just a naming issue. Nobody said there
must be a rule that if B hours after A:D pm is C:D pm, then A+B=C must be
true for all possible values of A and C.
Granted, the system for naming the hours and minutes is not very sensible,
but that's due to tradition. The plebs weren't too at ease with the
concept of zero (see the discussions about when the millenium starts, and
about there being no year 0AD), and, besides, if the village clock were to
chime 0 times at midday and midnight, people might not hear it.
There are other examples of non-too-sensible traditions. For example, given
a street on which house numbers have been allocated in the usual, dense,
fashion, and then a new house is built inbetween number 3 and number 5,
assuming that number 4 is on the other side. Typically it will be called
3A, rather than re-numbering all the houses from 5 upwards. Now we have
two threes, one "3", the other "3A". Would it not be more sensible to
call them "3A" and "3B", and have no "3"?
Either way, though things may not be entirely sensible, they're still logical,
because it is possible to discover and to follow the reasoning behind them.
Rainer Thonnes
In article <52q4oi$5...@mari.onr.com>, st...@the-light.com (Victor Engel) writes:
> Another
> pet peave of mine is that you should put a period before the quote.
Why the devil should you want to do that? I'd think that what you want to
put before the quote (and after it as well of course) is a quotation mark.
Truly Donovan
Victor Engel wrote:
>
> Could you please use it in a sentence? For some reason, I'm having
> difficulty picturing your definition.
"He referenced his homepage with URLs for related materials."
Note that I never said that anyone actually used it this way, just that it
existed and has been in dictionaries for a long time -- a factlet I had shoved
in my face in my early days of saying "'reference' is not a word" (something I
have long since learned not to say about *any* string of characters being
treated as a word).
Victor Engel
r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes) wrote:
Sorry. I abbreviated too much. I meant before the final quotation
mark, as in, "This sentence is a quote within this sentence." Here,
the quote is itself a sentence, so I don't have a problem with putting
the period in its proper place. My preference would be to add another
period after the quote mark, however so that the sentence would end,
"This sentence is a quote within this sentence.".
If, however, I were to include a quote that was not a complete
sentence, my preference would be to put the period outside of the
quote, as in "my preference would be to put the period outside".
However, this is incorrect.
Rainer Thonnes
> >> Another
> >> pet peave of mine is that you should put a period before the quote.
> r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes) wrote:
> >Why the devil should you want to do that? I'd think that what you want to
> >put before the quote (and after it as well of course) is a quotation mark.
>
> Sorry. I abbreviated too much. I meant before the final quotation
> mark,
I knew fine what you meant, I was just being flippant. Sorry.
> as in, "This sentence is a quote within this sentence." Here,
> the quote is itself a sentence, so I don't have a problem with putting
> the period in its proper place. My preference would be to add another
> period after the quote mark, however so that the sentence would end,
> "This sentence is a quote within this sentence.".
I have the same preferences, I treat the quote, including its marks,
as if it were a word, and punctuate the containing sentence accordingly.
The quoted material may or may not include a dot (as I call it, it
peeves me to find it referred to, so inappropriately, as a "period"),
and if that results in occurrences of '.".', which confuse only the
faint-hearted (or faint-brained), then so be it.
> If, however, I were to include a quote that was not a complete
> sentence, my preference would be to put the period outside of the
> quote, as in "my preference would be to put the period outside".
> However, this is incorrect.
I won't mention that in this case the quote *is* (potentially) a
complete sentence. Oh, darn, I just did.
No, it is not incorrect, it is simply a matter of style. It so happens
that the style you dislike is the one which is more prevalent in the US,
while the style which appeals more to us is more favoured in the UK.
Jeff Marx
>: I've found a simple & logical way to remember what the VCR wants, and
>: generally avoid confusing myself about 12 am vs 12 pm.
Here's a better one: set the VCR to begin recording at 11:59.
Jeff Marx
----------
It's called flowers wilt.
It's called apples rot.
It's called thieves get rich and saints get shot.
It's called God don't answer prayers a lot.
Alright, now you know.
-- Stephen Sondheim in MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG