derek@carroll1.cc.edu (Derek Inksetter) (01/12/90)
In article <50810@bbn.COM> ncramer@BBN.COM (Nichael Cramer) writes: > >From The Boston Globe's "Letters to the Editor", of 5 JAN 1990: > >I am tired on{sic} the bean-counters who insist that 1990 is not the... . . . >It is logically impossible to have a real year 0, just as you cannot have 0 >dollars. Is a $20 bill worth only $19 because there is no $0 bill? Well, I beg to differ on that. As a Junior undergrad student, and especially at this school, I can often say I have 0 dollars, and often do...just ask my friends...(I promise I'll pay you back next month guys...) > XXXXXXX X. XXXXXXXX > Auburn {Mass} Derek -- .sig file closed for repairs--No thru traffic
dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu (Dave Newton the Late) (01/14/90)
>In article <50810@bbn.COM> ncramer@BBN.COM (Nichael Cramer) writes: >It is logically impossible to have a real year 0, just as you cannot have 0 >dollars. Is a $20 bill worth only $19 because there is no $0 bill? Oh yes I can. I have _exactly_ $0. And I'm getting tired of it. -- David L. Newton | uunet!marque!carroll1!dnewton | The Raging Apostle-- (414) 524-7343 (work) | dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu | for the future-- (414) 524-6809 (home) | 100 NE Ave, Waukesha WI 53186 | for the world. "Isn't it fun to take two unrelated sentences and mix the batter lightly?" -me
migod@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) (01/16/90)
In article <30874@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> das@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Smallberg) writes: >Not literally an inconsistency, since "first" and "second" are etymologically >unrelated to "one" and "two". "Third" and "three" are related, of course, so >one hopes that Dijkstra's lists are very short. This same point is made by E.C.R. Hehner (member of this department) in his book "The Logic of Programming", and he goes on to suggest that we create the word "halfth" to go in between "second" and "third" so that "three" and "third" will match up (p81-82). The obvious objection is that this goes against centuries of convention. It is *not* like converting to metric where you replace one set of names (and measures) for another because you are redefining your old terms to mean something else. However, there is also a problem when you consider other languages. The French for "two" and "second" are "deux" and "deuxieme" respectively -- they *are* related. The same is also true in German (and, I would imagine, Dutch). Do we now rewrite the French/English dictionaries? If so, how? We need a new word in French, but we must place it between "first" and "second", unlike English. More and more confusing. Incidentally, Prof. Hehner's book starts at Chapter 0, section 0, subsection 0 on page 10 (well, the table of contents start on page 0). This is the only book I've seen where the odd numbered pages are on the left. -- Mike Godfrey Dept of Comp Sci, UofT "Soulwise, these are trying times." migod@csri.toronto.edu -- Strunk and White
7thSon@SLCS.SLB.COM (Chris Garrigues) (01/17/90)
From: das@lanai.cs.ucla.edu
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 19:06 CST
Not literally an inconsistency, since "first" and "second" are etymologically
unrelated to "one" and "two". "Third" and "three" are related, of course, so
one hopes that Dijkstra's lists are very short.
From the on-line documentation for my lisp machine. I believe this is
verbatim from /Common Lisp the Language/ by Guy Steel.
tenth list Function
Returns the tenth element of list. tenth is equivalent to
(nth 9 list)
Example:
(setq letters '(a b c d e f g h i j k l)) =>
(A B C D E F G H I J K L)
(tenth letters) => J
For a table of related items: See the section "Functions for Extracting
from Lists".
There are similar functions for accessing the 1st through the 9th
elements of lists, and they are documented similarly.
Chrisdas@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Smallberg) (01/17/90)
In article <1990Jan16.104013.15688@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> migod@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes: >In article <30874@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> I write: >>Not literally an inconsistency, since "first" and "second" are etymologically >>unrelated to "one" and "two". "Third" and "three" are related, of course, so >>one hopes that Dijkstra's lists are very short. > >This same point is made by E.C.R. Hehner (member of this department) in his >book "The Logic of Programming", and he goes on to suggest that we create the >word "halfth" to go in between "second" and "third" so that "three" and >"third" will match up (p81-82). > ... I don't expect any proposed change to ever be adopted. Informally, though, people invent shorthands. When I teach C, for example, when I get tired of talking about "element 0 of <some array>", "element 1 ...", I'll say "the zeroth element", "oneth", "twoth", "threeth". It gets a few smiles the first time, but students accept it and know what you're talking about. In an example where you've already talked about the zeroth, oneth, twoth, and threeth elements, you can even say "fourth" and have the students understand it as "element 4" (i.e. the fifth element). I try not to overdo it. I'd never do this in writing, since I hate it when an author foists a personal language-reform crusade on a reader. In a lecture, though, it comes across as a spontaneous useful invention. -- David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das
valentin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea) (01/17/90)
In article <1990Jan16.104013.15688@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> migod@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes: >In article <30874@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> das@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Smallberg) >writes: >> Not literally an inconsistency, since "first" and "second" are etymologically >> unrelated to "one" and "two". "Third" and "three" are related, of course, so >> one hopes that Dijkstra's lists are very short. > > [blah, blah] > > However, there is also a problem when you consider other languages. The > French for "two" and "second" are "deux" and "deuxieme" respectively -- they > *are* related. The same is also true in German (and, I would imagine, Dutch). > Do we now rewrite the French/English dictionaries? If so, how? We need a > new word in French, but we must place it between "first" and "second", unlike > English. More and more confusing. Actually, "second" also means "deuxieme" in French. Obvisouly the term "second" does have etymological roots derived from the number two, whether you call it "two" or "deux" or whatever. Valentin
des@elberton.inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) (01/17/90)
In article <30874@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> das@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Smallberg) writes: >Not literally an inconsistency, since "first" and "second" are etymologically >unrelated to "one" and "two". "Third" and "three" are related, of course, so >one hopes that Dijkstra's lists are very short. I seem to recall that they usually are, as in: case 0: .... proof of case 0 case 1: .... proof of case 1 the other cases are left as an exercise to the reader :-)
das@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Smallberg) (01/18/90)
In article <9360@cbmvax.commodore.com> valentin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea) writes: >>In article <30874@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> das@cs.ucla.edu (David Smallberg) writes: >>> ... "first" and "second" are etymologically unrelated to "one" and "two". > >Actually, "second" also means "deuxieme" in French. Obviously the term "second" >does have etymological roots derived from the number two, whether you call it >"two" or "deux" or whatever. > >Valentin Nope. "first" comes from a Germanic word meaning "prince" or "foremost"; "second" from a Latin word meaning "following" (cf. "sequence"). -- David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das
jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) (01/18/90)
In article <1990Jan16.104013.15688@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> migod@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes: >However, there is also a problem when you consider other languages. The >French for "two" and "second" are "deux" and "deuxieme" respectively -- they >*are* related. The same is also true in German (and, I would imagine, Dutch). >Do we now rewrite the French/English dictionaries? If so, how? We need a >new word in French, but we must place it between "first" and "second", unlike >English. More and more confusing. We already have the word: `second[e]'. It basically means: of two things, the one besides the first. Fortunately for us it's etymologically unrelated to `deux', so we have the following correspondence: zero premier the best, the ultimate, etc. un second the runner up, next to best, etc. deux deuxieme two away from the best trois troisieme three away from the best et cetera... Easier than English, huh?