Re: Python

On 3/5/26 14:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-03-05 18:42, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2026-03-05, Peter Flass <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is
>>>>>>> never quite sure...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Experimental science would not agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would need at least three.
>>>>
>>>> Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
>>>> with an error estimate on the measurement.
>>>
>>> No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The Space
>>> Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation as a check.
>>
>> And, IIRC, the third one was built and programmed by a different outfit.
> 
> Different software? That one I did not know.


   Just means it'll be wrong for different reasons  :-)

   You can have 100 clocks, and they'll all drift away from
   each other for various reasons. As per Einstein, the rate
   of time passage varies from place to place, moment to
   moment. Then there are the usual probs with 'clocks'.

   Which of the 100 clocks is correct ? Correct relative
   to what ? Maybe they're all skewed and screwed.

   Our ability to measure VERY fine bits of time has
   revealed our inability to measure time - funny !
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman3//lists/python-list.python.org