Talk:Hexadecimal time
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] WikiProject Time assessment rating comment
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 22:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
Does anyone have any sources on Nystrom's hexadecimal time system? What did his proposal entail other than to divide the day into sixteen hours? --W.
It seems that his works are published in the Franklin Institute Journal N°46, Philadelphia 1863. -- Peter 2005 17:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
"There are always 256 hexadecimal minutes in a hexadecimal hour and 16 hexadecimal seconds in a hexadecimal minute."
Does this mean that hexminutes and hexseconds simply do not apply to 256-hour days? It would make no sense to use a system of 32*256*16 hexadecimal seconds per day when you group bits by 8. Z-d 19:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
"Thus, the conception of hexadecimal time once sixteen hours a day implicates only eight mean longitudinal great circles. Furthermore, the congruency to the familiar cardinal positions of all the three pointers at 3, 9, 12 o'clock is deleted. In this format, the position of the pointers of an analog hexadecimal clock is identical to an analog 12-hour clock only once a day, at midnight."
What does this mean? I can't even parse it. I think it just means that, since the 16-hour clock covers a whole day, but the traditional clock only covers half, the hands won't be in the same position at the same time. If so, this has nothing to do with how many hours the day is sliced up into. -Dmh 16:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
This means that the positions of the three hands of an twice 16 hours hexadecimal clock are identical to the position of an twice 12 hours clock eight times a day: am 3H00, am 6H00, am 9H00 and at noon, just like as at pm 3H00, pm 6H00, pm 9H00 and at midnight. It's easy to understand. I restore now the former version. -- Paul Martin 20:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
PS. Also see: Hexadecimal metric system.
- I honestly don't find this "easy to understand". For example, are the hands in the same position as a normal clock once a day (as the article says) or eight times a day (as you say above)?
- If the day is divided into 16 hours (or is it 32? Let's say 16 since this is hexadecimal time), and traditional midnight is hour zero, then traditional noon is hour 8, traditional 6am is hour 4 and so forth. On a clock dial, hour 0H ought to be at the top, 4 on the right 8 at the bottom and C on the left. In this setup, the hands will be in their usual places only at midnight. But again, this is because the hands normally go around the clock twice in a day, but on the hex clock I'm describing (I have no idea if it's the setup the article describes), the hands go around once a day.
- On the other hand, if a hex clock runs from zero to eight and the hands go around twice in a day (or if it reads zero to 10 hex = 16 dec) then the hands will always be in the same positions as for a normal clock. Only the numbers on the face will be different. Again, this has nothing to do with how many numbers there are, only how many times the hands go around in a day. The hands would never be on the same numbers, since a normal clock has 12, not zero at the top (when I say "zero to eight" I really mean sliced into eight sectors, take your pick whether you put 0 or 8 at the top).
- If you put zero at the top of both a 12-hour and a hex clock (be it 8- or 16-hour, so long as the hands go around twice a day), then the hands and numbers will agree twice a day (noon and midnight). Otherwise, they will agree at 0 hour (midnight) only.
- This seems like an awful lot of nothing, really. Unless this is describing something unique to hex clocks — and as far as I can tell it's not — I'd suggest deleting it. -Dmh 05:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Twice sixteen"??
What's wrong with "thirty-two"? --D.M., 12.107.67.3 17:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism of IP:141.35.20.90
Dear IP:141.35.20.90. I know you as an anon user trying to introduce into Wikipedia (horrible) self-invented hexadecimal digits without any notability!
So you did this here for example here or internationally [1], [2] and [3] or before in en.wiki [4] Always your so-called Hexasmall.jpg
The only aim of your vandalism is to censure all links with a better and instantaneous operating solution for the problem of the unconsistent because ambigious IBM Hex-digits.
Because you dread nothing more than umbrage for your own (legitime, but ugly and unrealistic) proposal.
For the remain:
- I don't see why the Intuitor proposal of 1997 should be more notable than the Florencetime proposal of 1991.
- Neither I see, wherefore the link of your crony Steffen Eitner [5] should be significant but not the link to a real analogue hexadecimal clock. As external links both have their place.
So, please stop your vandalism. If not a Wikipedia arbitration will be necessary. -- Gluck 123 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If I´d be concerned about your figures (FFyour proposal = 68decimal instead of FFhexadecimal = 256decimal), I should also have a problem about the page of Steffen Eitner, who presents his figure proposals in a modest corner of his clock. But this clock is acceptable, because it divides the day in sixteen hours - exactly as defined by John W. Nystrom and the well-reputated scientific homepage Intuitor - and thus illustrates the content of this article, without adding private theories.
This article is about the scientific concept John W. Nystrom and people from Intuitor have developed: The hexadecimal time dividing the day in 16 hours, each divided in 256 minutes, each divided in 16 seconds. If the article wouldn´t be reduced to this, I also could describe a "hexadecimal forty-eight hours day" on my homepage, call it "triple sixteen hours format" and integrate it in this article.
The theory you want to advertise in this article is a different topic. So, if you are convinced it is important enough to be described in the Wikipedia, you should create an article about it . This could be called Hexadecimal time variant proposed by Michael Florencetime or Osservatorio virtuale di Firenze situato a Parigi or simply Michael Florencetime.
--89.247.199.199 (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, congratulation for the fact you decided to enter in discussion.
However, since we already exchanged twice or thrice, I know, sadly, it seems that's your style: if you lack arguments, – funkstille, you "laisse tomber dans l'eau", never mind ! –
I observe that's objectively your style, but certainly a bad one.
- "Steffen Eitner, in a modest corner of his clock:" We agree to dismiss.
- "the well-reputated scientific homepage Intuitor:" Give me any proof.
- "The hexadecimal time dividing the day in 16 hours:" The question is: 16 great-cercles or 8 longitudinal great -cercles? Both options are debatable, only one will catch on.
Hexadecimal time is: Time divided by sixteen. Either, on principle in concurrence with the day-and-night phenomenon or (erroneously and falsely puristic) as fractional part of the day. I agree that the hexadecimal part of the day well exists. I also use it in some calcutations. But I support fiercely that in the future hexadecimal standard time, the clock will turn twice a day. Just like nowadays. Since nor me nor you are able to proof which proposal will achieve, so both proposals are legitimate.
Finally, I don't understand. When we exchanged for the first time about one year ago, a priori, I perceived you as a equitable, reasonable person. I also respect your mathematic knowledge. We dont agree w.r.t. your hex-digit proposals, like you don't agree with the omni-literal hexadecimal digits. That's your right. But they will win.
Question: Why you want to censure the two tours solution? Nystrom was a precursor. He was more a technician than a scientific. Beyond without any chance to be understood by his 19 c. contemporains. His 16 month a year, nothing than nonsense. There are no 16 moons a year ! Florencetime invented the hexadecimal metric system in MCM.LXXXIX. In opposition to the decimal mesuring system, i.e. an acquirement of the bourgeois revolutionaries of AD MDCC.XCIII. Rogers? A straggler. Not even capable (the first to do) to define the meridians.
Both proposals exist: one tour, two tours a day. That's a fact. Argue, why Intuitor should be more reputated than Florenctime?? -- Gluck 123 (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"Argue, why Intuitor should be more reputated than Florenctime??"
The burden of proof is your´s. Try to create an article about Michael Florencetime; if it survives a request for delition, it may have a comparable reputation.
(And please come down from this Weltverschwörung nonsense about "censorship".)
As far as I know, in the Wikipedia it is not the question, if sth is "better" or "will win" and will be for shure very important in the future, but if it has a verification, that is more than a poor man living in an attic in Paris, concidered a "genius" only by himself and maybee some friends.
By the way, this article is (I´m glad) not about calenders. Of course Nystroms 16 "month" calendar is nonsense, but for me that´s tautologic; I concider calenders in gereral as superfluous old-fashioned crop. The only thing we can (and should) do is counting days and counting years. The need of some people to celebrate easter, labour day or their birthday is not a scientific need, and thus I dont see, why calenders should have any relevance beyond private life. The Julian Day Number is widely used, and I personly see much space for it left of the hexadecimal separator in the Florence Mean Time, given as a hexadecimal number in the interval [0,1).
That´s exactly how it is done at the moment in the several decimal times used in science (see Julian Date), so if you claim, that at the moment the clock turns twice, that´s only half the truth - and it´s the less important, because unscientific half.
And I don´t see any one, who wants to replace the counting of days, unavoidable even in everyday use, by your counting of half days. No need, no relevance and even no scientific source - except the "genious in the attic" ( : censored by "France" : ) and its personal homepage.
I have no problem about a link to this homepage and already included it - but any "Michael Florencetime" content undermining the article itself will be reverted, because it is still nothing than a private theory advertised on a private homepage.
Greetings. de:user:Tilman Piesk 87.123.101.132 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Tilman.
- Intuitor is the site of the three brothers Rogers. I don't see why the Florencetime site should be more "private" than Intuitor.
- I'am not sensitive for any conspiracy theory. But I know history.
The decimal metric system, i.e. nowadays SI, was proofable first voted by french National Convention in 1793 during the Reign of Terror. Since, "the-all-decimal" is an invention of the blood-thirsty bourgeois revolutionaries. Hexadecimal, I think here we agree, is the better base. That decimal units are an invention of these bourgeois. They do all for defending their invention for 200 years, including censorship. You may be naive to belief the opposite. - You have the right to "concider calenders in gereral as superfluous old-fashioned crop". But all others, including me, don't think so. It is impossible to evaluate historical dates in the Julian Day format. Even if you want propose a format like: "Year: YYYY, Day: DDD" (of 365 wrt. 366 days) you have to know the beginning of the year and its average length. Here, we are coming strait back to the hexadecimal system, since the tropical year (currently and soon exactly one) requires one exceptional leap year every 0x80 year, cf. [6].
Quotation: "I dont see, why calenders should have any relevance beyond private life." This proofs your lack of realism, since calenders have a great relevance public life. - You don't understand that the basic approach of the Julian Day numbering is inconsistent. Scalinger postulates a (28x19x15=) 7980-year-cycle. After, New Year and metonic New Moon should be again in concordance. But in reality they differ by weeks, since neither the Julian Calendar is in concordance with the true tropical year nor the metonic cycle is exact for thousands of years. Thus, it it urgently necessary to substitute the Julian Day counting by a better way to count.
- "the less important, because unscientific half" That's false! The sexagesimal second enters in reams of physical units in SI. So, do you pretend, that's all "unscientific"? No, the truth is, that an analogue decimal clock not even marks the four cardinal divisions, i.e. the quarter-hours, by a principal mark. Thus it couldn't replace the highly composite number orientated, old (and still current) time format. This shows the failing of decimal SI. Not even capable to join all the units in the same base.
- A good hexadecimal system of geographical coordinates has sixteen longitudinal great circles! So, 16 great-circles means 2x16 meridians. This is a highly consistent proposal.
(Where are your references for your Florencetimesmall.jpg numbering choise? Any sources excepting user:Tilman Piesk?) But 2x16 meridians imply 2x16 hexadecimal hours. This also reflects the day-and-night phenomenon. I know, for you, this phenomenon is "unscientific". It is true, if you observe from Sun, Earth turns once a day. But men live on Earth, therefore he choised for millennia, that clocks turns twice a day. Imho, a good choise. You have the right to think the opposite, but you must respect the other option.
If not you practice totalitarism under a "false scientific mask".
Conclusion: In 20th century the hexadecimal time was first proposed by Florencetime.
Neither the Intuitor proposal nor your own proposal to number sixteen meridians (from east to west!??) are "official". The twice sexteen hour proposal has its place in the article.
-- Gluck 123 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
