4 ms·

My two favorite bugs that became features: 1. "true black" dyes in Ultima Online [0] 2. Skiing in the game Tribe [1] [0] https://www.raphkoster.com/2010/11/2

My two favorite bugs that became features: 1. "true black" dyes in Ultima Online [0] 2. Skiing in the game Tribe [1] [0] https://www.raphkoster.com/2010/11/24/how-uo-rares-were-born/ https://www.raphkoster.com/2010/11/24/how-uo-rares-were-born... [1] https://tribes.fandom.com/wiki/Skiing https://tribes.fandom.com/wiki/Skiing [*] wow, the numbering here is real confusing!

mikorym 7y ago
Not to be prescriptive, but that is why I don't do the "hip" thing of numbering from 0. The question of whether 0 is a natural number or not, is from a category theorist's point of view, rather quixotic. The category theorist in question would either say: "of course it is a natural number" or "of course it is immaterial". The only situation in which one should panic, I think, is if the answer is "of course it is not a natural number". In this latter instance I think that you have a problem and that the ring theorist from the office next door has taken polyjuice potion and tied your professor up in the magical trunk, frow which you can probably by now hear feint moaning.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  > Not to be prescriptive, but that is why I don't do the "hip" thing of numbering from 0. Are there any old HN threads discussing/debating this? I’d be interested in hearing both perspectives. Any idea who started this trend and how long it’s been around? I once looked at some super old threads to see if it’s been a thing from the beginning and I didn’t see anyone doing it.
  - mikorym 7y ago
    Personally, I think it stems from HN readers having a chronic inclination to try to be clever (myself included and no judgment intended).
- Filligree 7y ago
  But it's not a natural numbers. Natural numbers are defined as 1 and up, and-- No, I'm not a ring theorist, why do you ask?
  - mikorym 7y ago
    It's a joke that is meant to both criticise category theorists and ring theorests (elsewhere on HN someone mentioned these kind of jokes have a name). But I don't think anyone here understood the joke. For a category theorest N and N_0 are equivalent. You have an initial number and a successor function, that's it. For a concrete mathematician, such as a ring theorist, it is much more important whether it's a natural number or not. They ask questions about numbers and how you can study properties of numbers (like number theorists). So my point was that if you find a category theorist insisting that 1 is a natural number and that 0 is not, then they don't view it as a set with an initial number and successor function. This would be somewhat unusual. For that matter you can start at 42 and include all numbers > 42. Then you can just get back to N via a bijection.
    - mikorym 7y ago
      Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number_object
- empath75 7y ago
  it's because most computer languages are 0 indexed, nothing to do with being hip.
  - mikorym 7y ago
    > most That is exactly my point: it is a fashionable trend.

mikorym 7y ago

Not to be prescriptive, but that is why I don't do the "hip" thing of numbering from 0. The question of whether 0 is a natural number or not, is from a category theorist's point of view, rather quixotic. The category theorist in question would either say: "of course it is a natural number" or "of course it is immaterial". The only situation in which one should panic, I think, is if the answer is "of course it is not a natural number". In this latter instance I think that you have a problem and that the ring theorist from the office next door has taken polyjuice potion and tied your professor up in the magical trunk, frow which you can probably by now hear feint moaning.

elliekelly 7y ago
> Not to be prescriptive, but that is why I don't do the "hip" thing of numbering from 0. Are there any old HN threads discussing/debating this? I’d be interested in hearing both perspectives. Any idea who started this trend and how long it’s been around? I once looked at some super old threads to see if it’s been a thing from the beginning and I didn’t see anyone doing it.
- mikorym 7y ago
  Personally, I think it stems from HN readers having a chronic inclination to try to be clever (myself included and no judgment intended).
Filligree 7y ago
But it's not a natural numbers. Natural numbers are defined as 1 and up, and-- No, I'm not a ring theorist, why do you ask?
- mikorym 7y ago
  It's a joke that is meant to both criticise category theorists and ring theorests (elsewhere on HN someone mentioned these kind of jokes have a name). But I don't think anyone here understood the joke. For a category theorest N and N_0 are equivalent. You have an initial number and a successor function, that's it. For a concrete mathematician, such as a ring theorist, it is much more important whether it's a natural number or not. They ask questions about numbers and how you can study properties of numbers (like number theorists). So my point was that if you find a category theorist insisting that 1 is a natural number and that 0 is not, then they don't view it as a set with an initial number and successor function. This would be somewhat unusual. For that matter you can start at 42 and include all numbers > 42. Then you can just get back to N via a bijection.
  - mikorym 7y ago
    Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number_object
empath75 7y ago
it's because most computer languages are 0 indexed, nothing to do with being hip.
- mikorym 7y ago
  > most That is exactly my point: it is a fashionable trend.