Why numbering should start at zero (1982)

Re:Why numbering should start at zero (1982) by gshubert17 on Thursday December 15, 2016 @02:59PM (#13187728)

In my teaching I try to distinguish between conventional-language numbering by saying "first", "second", "third"; from zero-based indexing by saying "zero-th", "one-th", "two-th", and so on.

It's a bit awkward, but once explained it is a quick way to tell the two numbering schemes apart.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why numbering should start at zero (1982) by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Thursday December 15, 2016 @03:33PM (#13188087)

Hmm, I dunno, I guess it might be a useful tool to explain the distinction? Not sure whether, in order to avoid long-term confusion, it would still be good to explain that, really, "first", "second", and so on, are the common words other people use for what you call "zero-th", "one-th", and so on?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why numbering should start at zero (1982) by sparky_z on Thursday December 15, 2016 @03:04PM (#13187787)

...unless you're working with indexes higher than 3. Or am I missing something?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why numbering should start at zero (1982) by smnc on Thursday December 15, 2016 @03:25PM (#13187980)

Perhaps they accentuate the difference via pronunciation or inflection. Otherwise I also fail to spot the difference.

[ Parent | on HN ]