3 ms·
It does, ask any shepherd, accountant, quartermaster, etc. It has a well defined meaning and use over the centuries which for hysterical reasons of economy it t
by burnte 7y ago
It does, ask any shepherd, accountant, quartermaster, etc. It has a well defined meaning and use over the centuries which for hysterical reasons of economy it took on a second meaning equal to physical 1. Luckily it's the only case in computing where established meanings in base ten were changed to fit a base 2 world.
- akvadrako 7y ago1 and 0 have the same meaning in both bases
- burnte 7y agoCPU0 would disagree, for example. A non technical person might be forgiven for thinking a system that says CPU0 has no CPUs, when in fact it has one, again, for example. Many logical objects start their enumeration at zero and increment from there. There are four rings of operation in Intel CPUs, but they are labeled ring 0 through 3.
- akvadrako 7y agoI’m sorry but you don’t understand what number base means https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix Nothing to do with starting number. And base 0/base 1 makes no sense.
- burnte 7y agoI'm sorry, but you clearly haven't heard of unary, or base 1, which is probably the earliest counting system which 1 is 1, 2 is 11, 3 is 111, etc. Tallymarks. You are correct base 0 would make no sense, however. But yes please explain to me the very thing we're talking about which is exactly what I was referencing when pointing out that using 0 as an identifier rather than a value is moderately counterintuitive.