OT, in case you couldn't guess (was Re: All symmetrical minutes (was Re: [plug] symetrical time))

[Peter Wright]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 05:20:01PM +0800, Trent Lloyd wrote:
> i dont think thats right
> 13:33 21/12 3331
> 
> shouldnt be like 13:31 13/31 1331 (i know that date isnt possible but u
> get the idea) or did i miss something

You missed something :-).  <-- note explicit smiley

The original chain email referred to times that are "symmetrical" when
represented a certain way - however, the way the author continued to talk
about it seemed to imply he was thinking of a more restrictive domain than
just "symmetrical" times. So I'm taking it literally, as it was written,
not as it was meant (whatever the hell that was).

Because

  13:33 21/12 3331

is definitely symmetrical[0] (of course not considering the colon and
forward slash which were added for readability). Isn't it? :)

Chain emails tend to be written in a simplistic, emotive, and misleading
(ie. wrong :) form - as this one was. If the original author had been clear
and defined the kind of thing he was thinking about correctly, it would
have been much trickier to read and understand and people wouldn't be
forwarding it about as maniacally as they're doing for the simple-yet-wrong
one.

Okay, only a bit over two hours to go now. Better get out the little flags
so you're ready to wave them about, people. :]

Pete.

[0] You could also think of it as a palindrome, if that helps.
    Like "Madam, I'm Adam".
-- 
http://akira.apana.org.au/~pete/
Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
		-- D.E. Knuth