On 20/05/2008, Justin Johansson <procode@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Perhaps you are not (a devil's advocate) but that's outright statement
> ("the only correct approach ..." ) without giving any justification.
I gave a justification.
>
> "0-based indexing is a frequent source of bugs, due to the mismatch in
> language that now enters the mental thought process."
>
> "The first element is numbered 0. It should be numbered 1, because that
> is the meaning of 1 in an ordinal context - the first item, not the
> second."
>
> Sorry, that is a fuzzy argument. Reminds me of arithmetic tables in
No it isn't.
> primary school :-
>
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
> 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
> 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
>
> Now ask the kids what is more difficult to learn, English or Arithmetic?
> (when the decade changes on the same row).
The decade does not change on the same row.
Each row is a single decade.
> P.S. Good reading is Simon Singh on "Fermat's Last Theorem". The concept
I have read it.
> of zero was a big thing in math history sublimed only by the invention or
> discovery (take your pick) of the square root of minus one.
But that is irrelevant.
Zero is zero, not one.