Re:Why numbering should start at zero (1982)
by andrewflnr on Thursday December 15, 2016 @02:50PM
(#13187632)
Linking ordinals to cardinals is done by the same abstraction process that first led us to think of numbers as distinct objects. We noticed there was a property in common between the set of our five fingers and a pile of five sticks. And hey, it's not so different from the property of the fifth object in some sequence, so let's lump those together. They're formally different, but intuitively similar.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why numbering should start at zero (1982)
by caf on Thursday December 15, 2016 @09:39PM
(#13190651)
...but isn't the most salient point of the fifth object that there are 4 objects preceding it? (there could be any number of object after it, and it would remain the fifth).
Re:Why numbering should start at zero (1982)
by belovedeagle on Thursday December 15, 2016 @11:10PM
(#13191000)
To play devil's advocate -- and let's be clear, confusing ordinals and cardinals really is the devil's work ;) -- there are 5 items not after the fifth item.
The ridiculousness of that argument should be evidence enough that the fifth item is item 4.
Re:Why numbering should start at zero (1982)
by andrewflnr on Friday December 16, 2016 @04:37PM
(#13197087)
Only if you phrase it awkwardly like that. Adding the fifth element creates a set of five elements.