• TwilightKiddy@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    There is no such thing as “zeroith”. Does not matter which numbers you slap on the tables, the one with the lowest number will always be the first. The word “first” has nothing to do with indices, it’s just an antonym for “last”.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      There’s no such thing as “zeroith” because it’s called “zeroth — being numbered zero in a series”

      This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn’t also want to equate index and offset.

      You’re right that first may be read as “opposite of last”, that would add to the confusion, but that’s just natural language not being precise enough.

      Edit: spelling

      Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you’re presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you’re asked, that’s not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I kind of brought this up in another comment, that “first” and “1st” aren’t really the same thing. Which is confusing when you extend that to fourth/4th five/5th. I don’t generally see someone write “zeroith”, but I’ll see “0th”.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        First and 1st are certainly different symbols for the same concept

        The spelling for the index before the first is zeroth, no need to insert an extra vowel