The great / horrible thing about popular usage is that once enough people are wrong, they are right.

I think we should just start skipping over the whole discussion about commutativity and all that other jazz and point out itâs actually quite intuitive that `x * y = xy`

, since we represent multiplication (not addition) as concatenation.

Though time is a continuous-valued quantity, so I hesitate to compare this to discrete-valued indexing. A discrete example is numbering the floors of a building: while I use 1-based indexing (the ground floor is floor 1), other people use 0-based indexing (the ground floor is floor 0).

Thatâs just as tribally divisive, though, and folks equally think that thereâs *one true wayâą* without realizing that itâs just difference in perspective. At its root it is the same thing: youâre either counting the difference (number of floors you have to climb) or youâre actually counting the levels.

Sometimes one is more convenient than the other.

Right, I was just trying to think of a real-world example where normal people use 0-based indexing for a discrete-valued quantity. So hopefully my example will help illustrate the point to people in the âfloor 0â tribe who are also in the â1-based indexingâ tribe. And hopefully that set isnât the empty set

When you write a message and forget to say something and latter correct it, do you say:

*let me add to my previous message that âŠ*

or

*let me*

**multiply**to my previous message that âŠIâm not saying itâs the *only* intuitive choice. Iâm saying that `x*y=xy`

is a reasonable mnemonic. The informal use of âAddâ to mean âAppendâ is a reasonable mnemonic for `x+y=xy`

. Theyâre both sensible choices.

A friend did a PhD which concluded that time comes in quantum packetâs, thus is also discrete valued. I canât say that I understood it, but from his starting assumptions he could show that some equations could only be solved at discrete intervals of time, and not for other times. From this he concluded that time must not be continuous!

In French the first floor is the English second floor.

It goes: rez-de-chaussĂ©e (RC = at street level), Ă©tage 1, 2, etc. So RC = 0.

In the province of QuĂ©bec youâll see hybrids sometimes: RC, 2, 3, etc. But that is technically incorrect and cause confusion when Quebecers go to France or vise versa.

I may argue that the âground floor is fixedâ is better than âlowest floor is fixedâ, which is just a mess : depending on the number of underground floors, you get out on the street at different levels. You may have to jump from 2 to 4 when you change buildings.