No it doesn't. It makes exactly the same amount of sense to put 12:00 with 12:01 as it does with 11:59, because noon is not post meridian in exactly the same way that is not ante meridian.
Actually, it does make more sense to group them. You see that 12 at the beginning of 12:00 and 12:01?
Most kids in the US are taught that 12 PM is noon and 12 AM is midnight in elementary school. Though many understand this by first grade, I have been surprised to encounter native English speaking 40+ year old adults that still do not remember this. "Meet me at lunch at 12 AM!"
> because noon is not post meridian in exactly the same way that is not ante meridian.
That was already implied. I think you're confused about what kbutler was stating. The full argument goes like this:
1. by itself, 12:00 is not post meridian
2. by itself, 12:00 is not ante meridian
3. therefore we must choose which label to use on other merits
4. without 1 or 2, it makes more sense to lump it with the time that's a single digit off by one, and not the time that's many digits off by many
---
On top of that, for 100.0000% of the time the clock reads "12:00" around noon, it's PM. Even if you defined the moment of noon to be AM, it would be impossible to ever catch a clock saying 12:00 during the final moments of AM.
So incrementing the arbitrarily least significant unit would require toggling the most significant unit with no other digits changing.
And if you ever saw a clock displaying 12am, it should actually be p.m. by the time the light reached your eye.
Makes more sense to increment the a to p at the same time you roll over all those 99s and 59s to 0, then 12 is consistent however precise your clock is.
