🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <50...@bbn.COM> ncr...@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

In article <50...@bbn.COM> ncr...@BBN.COM (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>Clearly, there could not be a year "0," which is an abstract concept that
>cannot have real existence (or it would not be "zero"), despite computers
>that insist "0" is a number.  Can you imagine Dec. 31, 0, AD?
>
>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?

Just as you only have $20 after passing the magic $19.99
you only have a decade after passing the magic 9 yrs 364(5) days
	so this argument is invalid.
If you had 30 cents you have 0 full dollars but be on your first dollar.
Similarly for years, on 30 Jun 1 AD ,you have went through 0 full years but are
	on your first year in the calendar.

>So one can argue that the first "decade" had only nine years, and therefore
>every subsequent decade (century, millennium) begins with the "0" year.

nope! sorry dont agree.
A decade is strictly a period of ten years

>Up with common sense, down with bean-counters! 

come on you bean counters!  8-}
A bean counter and proud of it! Well we are right aren't we?

=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
-		       = STRESS-   The confusion created when one's      =
= Graham McDermott     -   		mind overrides the body's basic  -
-   C.S.3              =   		need to choke the living shit    =
=    Strathclyde Univ. -   		out of some asshole who needs    -
-                      =   		it desperately			 =
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=

[This is more static about how the decade ends in 1990 not 1989.  I'm
as tired of this as you are, but my defective personality won't let me
leave it alone without putting in another last word.  Type 'n' now.]


	"Is a $20 bill worth only $19 because there is no $0 bill?"

No, it isn't.  But this Boston Globe letter writer betrays a lack of
reason in suggesting that there is an analogy between dollars and
years.  Dollars do not begin and end.

A better analogy: if you're in a 20 lap foot race, do you celebrate the
beginning of the 20th lap, or the end of the 20th lap?

(Personally, I celebrate both, but after 19 laps my brain is so
oxygen-starved that I'll take any excuse to party ...)

  -=- Andrew Klossner   (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)    [UUCP]
                        (andrew%frip...@relay.cs.net)   [ARPA]

In article <14...@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> gmcd...@cs.strath.ac.uk writes:
>In article <50...@bbn.COM> ncr...@BBN.COM (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>  ...[Lots of stuff I *didn't* write --as well as responses-- deleted]... 
 
AHEM!

I *hope* was clear to most people reading this message (and the original
posting) that *I* didn't write this, but that it comes from a letter to the
editor that I was merely *quoting* in the original posting (which was
itself so off the wall as to not need responding to).

In short: please be careful with attributes in follow-up messages; make
sure they "point" to the correct source.

Thank you
NICHAEL

On the beginning of decades:

Think.  9 months after you were born, how old were you?  1 year? No, you
were 0 years old.  12 months after you were born you were 1 year old. 
Thus, we have a table:

Months   Years
--------------
  12       1
  24       2
  36       3
  48       4
  60       5
  72       6
  84       7
  96       8 
 108       9
 120      10

Thus, the end of your tenth year of life occurs 120 months after you
were born.  The first ten years of your life == the first decade of your
life.  After the tenth year, the eleventh year begins.  Thus, the new
"decade of your life" begins in the 121st month after your birth, which
is in the *11th* year after your birth, not the *10th*.

Is this so complicated?

Barry Jaspan, MIT-Project Athena
bja...@athena.mit.edu

PS: Now that I reread the article, I guess the reference to months
wasn't necessary.  Ah, well.  The real question is: what does this have
to do with alt.folklore.computers?

>In article <50...@bbn.COM> ncr...@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) |    dne...@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

In article <14...@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> gmcd...@cs.strath.ac.uk writes:
>If you had 30 cents you have 0 full dollars but be on your first dollar.
>Similarly for years, on 30 Jun 1 AD ,you have went through 0 full years but are
>	on your first year in the calendar.

To slightly change the subject this reminds me of an inconsistency in
the "everything starts a zero" people. An arch-proponent of this is
Edsger Dykstra who insists on making statements of the form

	"firstly zero"

which always struck me as a bit strange.

david shepherd
INMOS ltd

In article <36...@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> d...@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd) writes:
>...                            this reminds me of an inconsistency in
>the "everything starts a zero" people. An arch-proponent of this is
>Edsger Dykstra who insists on making statements of the form
>
>	"firstly zero"
>
>which always struck me as a bit strange.

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.

-- David Smallberg, d...@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das

In article <30...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> d...@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."
mi...@csri.toronto.edu    				-- Strunk and White

In article <1990Jan16.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> mi...@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
>In article <30...@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, d...@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das

In article <1990Jan16.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
mi...@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
>In article <30...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> d...@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

In article <30...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> d...@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


:-)

In article <93...@cbmvax.commodore.com> vale...@cbmvax.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea) writes:
>>In article <30...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> d...@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, d...@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das

In article <1990Jan16.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> mi...@csri.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
>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.

So what's the number of the inside page of the front cover?
-1?
-- 
David A. Kuder                                               Now what coach?
415 438-2003  da...@indetech.com  {uunet,sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david

In article <1990Jan16.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> mi...@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?

One of the backbones of the television medium, private eyes have been
a part of television since its inception.  Even to this day, Americans
can't seem to get enough of this genre.  Whodunits, cops-and-robbers,
spies and counterspies, and mayhem in general will probably last
as long as there is television.

Match the following with their respective shows:

 1. Mother's		a. Philip Marlowe
 2. Sam			b. Dragnet
 3. Pax			c. 87th Precinct
 4. Erskine		d. The Girl from U.N.C.L.E.
 5. Ben Alexander	e. Hawaii Five-O
 6. Richard Long	f. Richard Diamond
 7. Robert Conrad	g. Peter Gunn
 8. Ben Gazzara		h. Longstreet
 9. Paul Burke		i. The FBI
10. Mike Conners	j. Hawaiian Eye
11. Philip Carey	k. Arrest and Trial
12. Noel Harrison	l. 77 Sunset Strip
13. Gena Rowlands	m. Tightrope
14. Darren		n. Mike Hammer
15. James MacArthur	o. Naked City

I'll post the answers and a new set of question in about two weeks.
I need to receive your answers by mail (do not post, please) by
January 29.  If your mail bounces, you can use the snail address below.

Format:
1. answer
2. answer
etc

Have a good time!

Next quiz (#4): True and False--a little bit of everything.

					gary levine
					AT&T
					Room 9A101
					140 Centennial Avenue
					Piscataway,
					NJ   08855
					201-457-7038

J. H. Conway's book "On Numbers and Games" is in two parts.  The last
part is called "First Part".  That is preceded by a part called
"Zeroth Part".

I guess this is in keeping with the numbers discussed in the book, since
they clearly begin with zero, not one.
--
  Gerald A. Edgar          
  Department of Mathematics             Bitnet:    EDGAR@OHSTPY
  The Ohio State University             Internet:  ed...@mps.ohio-state.edu
  Columbus, OH 43210   ...!{att,pyramid}!osu-cis!shape.mps.ohio-state.edu!edgar

On 18 Jan 90 12:53:35 GMT,
gal@atux01.UUCP (G. Levine) said:

Levine> One of the backbones of the television medium, private eyes have been
Levine> a part of television since its inception.  Even to this day, Americans
Levine> can't seem to get enough of this genre.  Whodunits, cops-and-robbers,
Levine> spies and counterspies, and mayhem in general will probably last
Levine> as long as there is television.

Why was this cross posted to alt.folklore.computers?  Computer
folklore and TV trivia are not too closely related.

--
Don Allingham           
NCR Microelectronics 			ncr-fc!bach!do...@ccncsu.colostate.edu 
Ft. Collins, CO.        		uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!ncr-fc!bach!dona

In article <DONA.90Ja...@handel.ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.com>, do...@ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.com (Don Allingham) writes:
> Why was this cross posted to alt.folklore.computers?  Computer
> folklore and TV trivia are not too closely related.

You're right--and my apologies to computer folklore readers.

					gary