this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
993 points (98.7% liked)
memes
21285 readers
3473 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Djikstra was so fucking wrong with this and people who parrot this are so annoying.
Sure, an offset starts at zero, but an index can very well start at one. Not all arrays represent a physical offset, please stop pretending your inferior zero only indexing is in any way superior.
Sometimes math is just simpler from one. When you’re translating math to code, one based indexes are usually better.
I shall not lower myself to use the newfangled Mathematical inventions of the Arabs and instead keep doing Mathematics like the Romans!
But how will you use zero-indexing without the number zero?
All I hear is nothing-indexing with nothing.
If your math uses numbers it's not real math.
Technically Real math only uses numbers.
No
I believe it was a joke where real maths refer to maths dealing with real numbers.
Fuck the real numbers. Numbers are an abstraction.
Zero is a "real" number. Negative 5 is a "real" number. But have you ever seen zero apples or sailed on negative 5 boats? Uh uh no you haven't. They are not real.
In reality there's only existence or nonexistence, it could be a thing or it could not be anything at all, though the latter is actually impossible. All other things are then not the same as that. If you line them up you can make statements like this thing is not that thing. This is basically the succession function, and we're already ahead of ourselves.
From there on we can start inventing more abstractions by using Peanos axioms, but it's all abstractions, because the second axiom state that something is the same as something, and nothing in reality is ever the same as something else.
It's all made up. Reality does not have numbers at all.
I've heard people argue in both sides of "is 0 a natural number?". But I've never before encountered the "there are no natural numbers" argument. It's like flipping a coin and having it land sidewise.
Yeah sorry I am a sideways coin when I get bored.
It would be great if say .. two atoms .. were the same, so we could say that these are the same and that this is the definition of 1 and start counting and so on, but they're just not. It's fractals all the way down and up. The entirety of math requires an abstract definition that segments things to be the same like a pixelated resolution of reality. It only exists as an idea.
No
In economics, many indices start at 100.
Economics? Completely replaced by bistromathics