Revealing A Secret Time Zone
=12:00 noon/midnight= time variable points of 1:60 (2:60, 3:60... and so on)
[[* Bulleted list item | Bulleted list item:
- Bulleted list item
variable points of 1:60 (2:60, 3:60... and so on)
DECLARATION OF FACT: Until purposively created as herein so provided, the #:60 time variable does not exist. All clocks since time immemorial were so designed that upon reaching the 59th minute, thereafter following shall be hour that proceeds in 00.00 variable. Thus, after 1:60 proceeds 2:00. For strict assignment of DomainNames, and such other significant purposes, we cannot qualify in strict terms the congruence between 1:60 and 2:00. This is because the former a sub-variable belonging to 1:00 being the end-point variable of that hour. 2:00 cannot take the place of that variable because 2:00 is a sub-variable of the 2nd hour being its beginning-point variable. Otherwise considered, time points ending #:00 shall be a sub-point variables of two hour-points (where 1:60 both end-point variable of 1:00 and beginning-point variable of 2:00).
The same is not the case principle in other numerical systems existing. When we say there are 30 days in the month of January, we have to reach the count of the 30th day being the end-point variable of that month. What follows 29th January is 30th not February 0 primarily because we quality the month as having 30 days. Relating with time, when we say there are 60 minutes in an hour, we should likewise reach the 60th minute in the chronological count where there should be a particular variable as 1:60 or 2:60 and so on.
Prevailing contrary argument will not hold a standard principle if we should consider as equally significant an element the principle of consistency in the assignment of values for family/class integers (family integers if FIRST HOUR are 1:01 to 1:60 e.g., [as ideally so]). Such counter argumentation shall bring us to the subsequent conflicting principle should we have that considered as to whether family/class integers respecting time should begin in 1:00 or 1:01? To say so shall mean that the former will run conflict with 12:60 as it will be removed owing to being replaced or substituted by 1:00.
The paramount case argument is actually that it is only time that we seem to have signled-out that starts its count or otherwise initiates chronology in a base point of 00 (all other chronology starts with NUMBER 1 thus without encountering any conflict on intersecting points. Ideally in our prevailing numerical system, we end (and not start) with 0 thus saying the first hundredth count end with 1'00 not in the 99th count where the first Hundredth count series starts with 101 and not in 100 as is used in TIME NUMERICAL SEQUENCING. The same holds true with counting principles on measurements for example. The start of counting sequence of 1 foot is ONE INCE ending in ONE FOOT and not in 00 inch as to end in 11th inch.
To argue even that time is a numerical count within a cycle (which ends where it begins) shall run counter with the principle on numerical count of our calendar which is also a cyclical chronology where the ending and beginning points also intersect (December 31 vis-a-vis January 1 as we see no question of conflict unlike intersections of 11:60 and 12:00 where there is a static/stagnant and instantaneous congruence of intersecting variables).