Live data from Hacker News

Numbering should start at zero (1982)

cs.utexas.edu

211–220 of 309 posts

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you write “you” as “u” here? I don’t want to be rude, but it’s very jarring to see juvenile txt-speak in a serious discussion.

I want to be rude. The mix of "The same consideration applies to coordinate systems:" and "r u positioning urself..." in the same message is ridiculous to me and I can't take anyone seriously who speaks like this. It's not illegal or immoral, but it is at the very least, demonstrably distracting from their own actual substantive point. Here we all are talking about that when they otherwise had a perfectly good observ…

[deleted]

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have started using “u” in my posts as there are a surprising number of sites that block or delay for approval posts that use “you”. They seem to feel that posts with “you” are too often inflammatory. It is very frustrating when you use grammatical “you” as I just did and suddenly your post is stuck in limbo.

What sites? I have never heard of anything like that.

Reddit does it

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#213
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American elevators are 1-indexed!

at the whitney art gallery (nyc), the ground floor is 1, but the basement is -1. there's no 0 in between it bothers me way more than it should. i have to tell myself that the point of art is often to evoke emotions, and the rage i feel is included in that

A possible interpretation....

Using the insight from the top comment that "it all depends on whether u're counting the items themselves (1-based) or the spaces btwn them," the American way of numbering floors is based on counting actual floors (ie, the things you stand on) -- and the one at earth level is one floor. If you go up a flight of stairs, there is second floor to stand on, and so on.

For buildings that go underground, the "-" sign can now act as a signifier of being underground, and the counting works as normal. If you take the stairs down one level, you are on the first underground floor, -1.

Of course, you want to interpret it like a y-axis number line, where 0 is the earth, 1 is "1 floor unit" above the earth, -1 is "1 floor unit" below the earth, etc. This is the "space between" model.

Elegance aside, both can be viewed as logically consistent depending on your lense.

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#214

Perhaps ideally we'd change English to count the "first" entry in a sequence as the "zeroth" item, but the path dependency and the effort required to do that is rather large to say the least. At least we're not stuck with the Roman "inclusive counting" system that included one extra number in ranges* so that e.g. weeks have "8" days and Sunday is two days before Monday since Monday is itself included in the count. *…

It is definitely my engineer myopia, but octaves in music should be called dozens

Music only settled on 12 equal tones after a lot of music theory and a lot of compromise. Early instruments often picked a scale and stuck with it, and even if they could produce different scales, early music stuck to a single scale without accidentals for long stretches. Many of these only had 5 or 6 notes, but at the time and place these names were settling down, 7-note scales were common, so we have the 8th note being the doubling of the 1st.

Most beginners still start out thinking in one scale at a time (except perhaps Guitar, which sorta has its own system that's more efficient for playing basic rock). So thinking about music as having 7 notes over a base "tonic" note, plus some allowed modifications to those notes, is still a very useful model.

The problem is that these names percolated down to the intervals. It is silly that a "second" is an interval of length 1. One octave is an 8th, but two octaves is a 15th. Very annoying. However, it still makes sense to number them based on the scale, rather than half-steps: every scale contains one of every interval over the tonic, and you have a few choices, like "minor thirds vs. major thirds" (or what should be "minor seconds vs. major seconds"). It's a lot less obvious that you should* only include either a "fourth" (minor 3rd) or a "fifth" (major 3rd), but not both. I think we got here because we started by referring to notes by where they appear in the scale ("the third note"), and only later started thinking more in terms of intervals, and we wanted "a third over the tonic" to be the same as the third note in the scale. In this case it would have been nice if both started at zero, but that would have been amazing foresight from early music theorists.

* Of course you can do whatever you want -- if it sounds good, do it. But most of the point of these terms (and music theory in general) is communicating with other musicians. Musicians think in scales because not doing so generally just does not sound good. If your song uses a scale that includes both the minor and major third, that's an unusual choice, and unusual choices requiring unusual syntax is a good thing, as it highlights it to other musicians.

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

im not debating the user level stuff. honestly i think there's fair argument for not letting users get bogged down in system level details. but in my opinion, if people dont understand this why, its a useful thing to learn. its only a small detail in the end. i think, because software is built up abstractions over abstractions, its unavoidable such details creep into languages from the depths of the system. its not t…

I don't disagree with anything you say. I'm not saying that C should have 1-based indices, for example. I'm only saying that from a language design perspective, ignoring technical limitations and historical precedents, 1-based indices would be preferable.

0 is logically superior regardless of how any of it is implemented under the hood. It just makes more sense.

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely my engineer myopia, but octaves in music should be called dozens

I think we should call them doubles

Sure, and we can call major sixths "one-point-six-eight-one-seven-nine-threes". Or "one-point-six-sevens" if you're a bit flat.

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you write “you” as “u” here? I don’t want to be rude, but it’s very jarring to see juvenile txt-speak in a serious discussion.

I want to be rude. The mix of "The same consideration applies to coordinate systems:" and "r u positioning urself..." in the same message is ridiculous to me and I can't take anyone seriously who speaks like this. It's not illegal or immoral, but it is at the very least, demonstrably distracting from their own actual substantive point. Here we all are talking about that when they otherwise had a perfectly good observ…

People taking such offense to something so absolutely inconsequential, on an internet forum no less, is ridiculous to me and I can't take anyone seriously who gets worked up about it.

You, and parent poster, understood them fine. You, and the parent poster, are the ones who are steering the conversation in the direction of how they typed, not what they typed.

They had a "perfectly good observation to talk about", yet u decided not to talk about it.

Re: Numbering should start at zero (1982)

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sites? I have never heard of anything like that.

Reddit does it

[citation needed] I've never seen that claim before. I can imagine that some subreddits do something silly like this but Reddit itself?
Post reply on HN