Nobody want to be seen talking to a guy wearing socks with sandals.
The haters will hate until they try it themselves and learn thats its peak foot comfort.
Barefoot gang would like a word.
When its warm enough i agree
People who didn’t grow up in the pacific NW:
I’d wear socks and sandals before starting an index at 1
You have obviously never been to the Czech Republic
Or the Midwest United States during pumpkin spice season
Or to any woung people from 2000 onwards. To them, specifically white socks with slip-in sandals is a perfectly good choice of footwear!
Just to be clear, the problem is actually not that the guy was being boring but that he was a monster.
I think actually it’s because he’s not himself.
MATLAB is for matrix calcs. Matrix indices start at 1, fight me. Given a matrix X of m x n size, you write
Matlab has many issues, amongst other accessibility (which can be remedied by piracy), closed-software, but as a program designed to do computational matrix manipulation, starting at index 1 is literally correct. This is how you learn matrix indices in intro linear algebra. How is it make sense then you use a software to assist computation and start indexing at 0, while you write the equations and indices on a piece of paper you start at 1. CS majors go home.
Starting at 0 makes sense in low-level languages like C because it’s not really an index but a memory offset. Higher level languages like SQL or MatLab correctly start at 1 because they abstract memory management away. Other languages without manual memory management, such as JavaScript or Python, are incorrectly starting their arrays at 0.
So, I’m not alone… Thank you!
It’s worth noting that a number of languages comparable C in use case and performance (including its predecessors COBOL, Fortran and ALGOL) start indexing at 1 just fine because they have proper array types and don’t make heavy use of pointers poking and peeking wherever they like (eg by using references instead).
Decoupling indices from memory offsets doesn’t get in the way of performance and actually often allows better optimization because the compiler knows you aren’t sharing pointers between arrays or some other shenanigans; see Fortran, the GOAT of fast array processing. This also allows improved type safety and thus memory safety; see index types in Ada/SPARK and the fact that it’s the only ‘legacy’ language that’s gotten comprehensive compile-time memory safety analysis (though the latter is moreso from the less willy-nilly pointers in general)
Almost every programming language uses 0.
Is there a reason for the convention other than that’s how most people count? (Which is a perfectly fine reason, I’m just curious)
When you say the first element of a matrix, first implies one and not zero. This is how linear algebra was invented (on paper, by a human mathematician), taught, and passed down to fellow humans.
Starting indexes at zero stem from the lineage of C programming and binary nature of computer. For example,
Computer memory addresses have 2^N cells addressed by N bits. Now if we start counting at 1, 2^N cells would need N+1 address lines. The extra-bit is needed to access exactly 1 address. (1000 in the above case.). Another way to solve it would be to leave the last address inaccessible, and use N address lines.
This is why, math and physics people who learn linear algebra and matrix calculus learn to index at 1 (on a piece of paper) while computer science programmers index at 0.
Is linear algebra older than 0? Hang on (no, it is not, formalised in 17th century)
In my CS course, at least, it was treated as “engineering”, so we did both linear algebra and C programming. For everyone counting from 1 was more natural and the C method had to be taught a few times throughout the course (starting with java loops, which wasn’t used for malloc, OOP was probably the first unit anyone did for CS). As a habit it tended to stick even where we didn’t really use it (or in languages that don’t, e.g. lua), given how grueling C programming was and the other languages that were downstream of it.
I guess you could analogise things like saying “17th century” is 1600-1699 (first century is 0001 to 0099, I guess), in CS you are counting the very start of a thing (e.g. how many apple-widths to get to the first apple), vs the more common how many apples to have gotten the first apple. Or something, idk,
I’m drunk and avoiding housework, sorry
There is no general convention in mathematics and linear algebra to index from 1. It highly depends on the department and person and it’s becoming more common to index from 0.
It’s from when arrays were just a block of memory and the index was the offset. So you’d start at pointer x and read memory from there. x + i was your memory location. So you’d start at x + 0 to read your first data element. x + 1 would be the location in memory of the second element.
MATLAB is for matrix calcs
Gonna have to correct you on that one. MATLAB is for self torture.
Like Matlab would give a fuck about anyone’s feelings
This is the first time that I see this meme and I’m on the friend group B side, now I know how it feels.
It was the footwear that was the issue.
Need more fRiends
If they’re using MATLAB, wouldn’t the index start at 1?
thatsthejoke.jpg
Group A starts indexing at 1. Group B at 0.
To me, the second layer of the joke is that the choice of starting number is significant enough that the author considers it to be two distinct personalities!
Mathematicians and computer scientists are natural enemies.
Like mathematicians and physicists.
Yeah this joke goes much deeper than I thought when I first commented.
It’s like u want fencepost errors.
Arrays start at zero, just like floors on a building
Hi, what is this meme format called?
I love that friend group A is a gradient.
It’s the logo of the Matlab software.
I can barely maintain one personality … Maybe that’s why I don’t get invited to any parties.
I’m with that guy. C was a mistake
Blasphemy!
Hate to break it to you, but almost every language uses 0-based indexing.
Yes, popularized by C
Matlab likes 1-indexed thingers
