(no title)
keskival | 1 year ago
Days, as the author points out, are though of with "flooring", but more accurately it could be said that a date is thought of as a range between the times belonging to the date.
Minutes one can consider as ranges or time indices. There the error comes, in switching the interpretation of a start of a duration to an actual estimate of a point of time index.
ASalazarMX|1 year ago
You can keep playing with increasingly smaller time units until you conclude, like Zeno's arrow paradox, that you're always infinitely late.
msm_|1 year ago
derbOac|1 year ago
Another way of thinking about this is that the author is confusing time as measurement (how much time) with time as rule (what time is it). If you wanted to measure the duration as a difference in clock times, yes, there would be a certain amount of measurement error incurred by the way clocks are displayed. But if you want to know the time, in the sense of whether a certain time has been reached, or a certain graduation has been crossed, it doesn't make sense to round to the nearest minute.
The question of "how much is this clock off?" is only meaningful with reference to a certain use or interpretation of the numbers being displayed. If you say it's "8:56" people know it could be anything up to but not including 8:57, but greater than or equal to 8:56. The number means a threshold in time, not a quantity.