Wikipedia is known for many things but not for its wisdom. Counting is counting things. For example sheeps. You don't have 0 sheeps. Either you have 1 or 2 or 3 or you don't have any.
If there are software engineers, things change because they treat 0 as an element of the list and 0 is the first in the list 1 the 2nd, etc.
> Wikipedia is known for many things but not for its wisdom.
I was not the one who posted a Wikipedia link. I was only responding to the fact that the Wikipedia link did not support the prior poster's claim.
> Counting is counting things. For example sheeps. You don't have 0 sheeps. Either you have 1 or 2 or 3 or you don't have any.
Not having any sheep is literally having 0 sheep.
Re:Why is the 0 next to 9, not next to 1?
by BugsJustFindMe on Monday April 26, 2021 @06:04AM
(#26940946)
> Not having any sheep is literally having 0 sheep.
Only if you ignore the difference between having and not having.
How is this ignoring the difference? The statements 'I do not have any sheep' and 'I have 0 sheep' are synonymous; neither statement ignores the other.
> The traditional way of counting consists of continually increasing a (mental or spoken) counter by a unit for every element of the set