you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment