On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 18:40, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > You've now gone and spoilt a perfectly good nonsense thread with some > (admittedly obvious) logic and reason! > shame on you...
And here's more logic and reason, though I prefer to index using integer multiples of PI ;-) http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html Why numbering should start at zero ================================== To denote the subsequence of natural numbers 2, 3, ..., 12 without the pernicious three dots, four conventions are open to us a) 2 ≤ i < 13 b) 1 < i ≤ 12 c) 2 ≤ i ≤ 12 d) 1 < i < 13 Are there reasons to prefer one convention to the other? Yes, there are. The observation that conventions a) and b) have the advantage that the difference between the bounds as mentioned equals the length of the subsequence is valid. So is the observation that, as a consequence, in either convention two subsequences are adjacent means that the upper bound of the one equals the lower bound of the other. Valid as these observations are, they don't enable us to choose between a) and b); so let us start afresh. [... follow the link for the rest ...] http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
