1 sheep -> the number of sheep present when there is one
0 sheep -> the number of sheep present when there are none
Because you normally only enumerate things that are there it seems like you are starting at '1', but really you start relative to the situation where there are 'none'.
You can't have 'negative' presence of anything so it took a while longer to realize that there might be negative numbers too.
As for element 0 being odd or even, it's even.
So, it isn't silly and it has a reason.
0 is one of the biggest inventions in the history of mankind, programmers have given it it's natural place because we could not make our computers work if we didn't do that.
Er, that's all worng. The question isn't number of, but index of. The index of the first element in a collection is 0. The index of the first sheep in a flock is (conventionally) 1. The total elements up to index n (inclusive) is n+1 -- the opposite parity -- which can be initially confusing.
An index is a label, a convenient way of finding something when you remember where you left it. You can start your indexing at any offset, you don't even need to use numbers (you could for instance look at an associative array where you store stuff based on a hash of some value).
index = position, label
The count is the number of occupied slots and is totally independent of the positions or labels.
Otherwise how would you count the number of elements in a sparse matrix ?
In this particular case though, where you have operations depending on evenness/oddness of some attribute related to position in a set (either position by index, or count) and the index starts with 0, there is absolutely confusion to be had over which implementation would be used.
Your logic is sound, but it's counter-intuitive to think of Obj[2] as a member of 'mulo', an odd number, "because 2 is really the 3rd element". A person implementing the system could be logical by your ideal (making 2 odd) or logical by the ideal of common sense and readability (making 2 even). Either could validly hold in a person's mind.
Given the ambiguity, I think it just shows that you shouldn't base operations on oddness/evenness, or should rigidly and obviously define them if you must use them.
Yes, they do, when they have no elements. But if an array has an element 0, it actually has 1 element, not 0. Whereas if I have a sheep 1, I have 1 sheep. There is no sheep 0.
I think it would be good to note that I have nothing against 0 as a number. It's useful for many purposes including to indicate that a set actually has 0 elements, but I'm not so sure it's such a good idea to actually call the first element element 0.
When counting sheep in a field I'll count 1 sheep, 2 sheep etc.
When counting variables I'll say one variable, two variables and so on.
No difference there.
When placing items in an array I say this value goes in to slot '0', this will go into slot '1'. The slots are labelled with their index. And I will say there are now two values stored in the array, one at 'position' 0 and one at 'position' 1.
I think the whole problem disappears when you think of 'rank' as labels and count as the actual number of elements.
The first sheep is just a label you stick on a sheep to identify it, that makes it different from the other sheep.
1 sheep -> the number of sheep present when there is one
0 sheep -> the number of sheep present when there are none
Because you normally only enumerate things that are there it seems like you are starting at '1', but really you start relative to the situation where there are 'none'.
You can't have 'negative' presence of anything so it took a while longer to realize that there might be negative numbers too.
As for element 0 being odd or even, it's even.
So, it isn't silly and it has a reason.
0 is one of the biggest inventions in the history of mankind, programmers have given it it's natural place because we could not make our computers work if we didn't do that.
Imagine binary logic based on '1' and '2'....