News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why do arrays start at 0? by topaz0 on Thursday August 25, 2022 @10:02PM (#32602521)
The romans weren't the only people who knew how to count back then... And how many of the other (presumably arbitrary) choices for smallest number were zero? And why did it take over one thousand years to come up with ordinal "zeroth" after we knew about cardinal "zero"?

> It seems that when labeling ... number ... that precede it, plus one.

I don't think so. It's the number that you have counted once you've counted that one.

Re:Why do arrays start at 0? by maxdamantus on Friday August 26, 2022 @01:02AM (#32603537)
How do you write zero in Roman numerals? Answer: you can't. Even though they used their number system for adding amounts of money, they hadn't figured out "cardinal zero" yet.

It was introduced into western mathematics through Fibonacci in the 1200s at the same time that Hindu-Arabic numerals were adopted, which use "0" as a placeholder (compare this to earlier Greek numerals which work similarly to the system we use today but without placeholders and using different sets of symbols for the different places—and of course no way of representing zero).

Re:Why do arrays start at 0? by topaz0 on Friday August 26, 2022 @10:34AM (#32608056)
That's what I'm talking about (though I guess the "thousand years" estimate was slightly high). Why did it take hundreds of years after the introduction of zero to get "the zeroth element of a sequence", which is quite a new usage, and even now is confined to specialized fields?