• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I mean, zeroth would still be zeroth; it’s just based on the cardinal the moment before it arrived rather than after, assuming you start with nothing and add objects. Unfortunately that’s not conventional, probably in any language, and so you get a situation where a positional notation clashes with how we want to talk about the larger divisions of it casually. This sort of thing is exactly why computer science does use zero indexing.

    Relatedly, there was also no year 0; it goes straight from 1 BC to 1 AD.

    • Jojo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      But then otherwise we would have a year +0 and a year -0. You really want that on your conscience?

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Signed zero is hiding under your bed.

        I mean, it would be notated 0AD/BC(E) so it’s not like it would look goofy either. A separate year 0 that’s neither would also be an option, with the reference event within it.

        • Jojo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Signed zero is hiding under your bed.

          Ha! Then it’s trapped! I have one of those fancy beds with drawers in it.

          Wait… That means it’s going to pop out of my drawers…

          Anyone want a bed?