There is no such thing as “zeroith”. Does not matter which numbers you slap on the tables, the one with the lowest number will always be the first. The word “first” has nothing to do with indices, it’s just an antonym for “last”.
I kind of brought this up in another comment, that “first” and “1st” aren’t really the same thing. Which is confusing when you extend that to fourth/4th five/5th. I don’t generally see someone write “zeroith”, but I’ll see “0th”.
There’s no such thing as “zeroith” because it’s called “zeroth — being numbered zero in a series”
This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn’t also want to equate index and offset.
You’re right that first may be read as “opposite of last”, that would add to the confusion, but that’s just natural language not being precise enough.
Edit: spelling
Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you’re presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you’re asked, that’s not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least
There is no such thing as “zeroith”. Does not matter which numbers you slap on the tables, the one with the lowest number will always be the first. The word “first” has nothing to do with indices, it’s just an antonym for “last”.
I kind of brought this up in another comment, that “first” and “1st” aren’t really the same thing. Which is confusing when you extend that to fourth/4th five/5th. I don’t generally see someone write “zeroith”, but I’ll see “0th”.
And here I thought people write “1st” because they are lazy and want to press 3 keys instead of 5.
First and 1st are certainly different symbols for the same concept
The spelling for the index before the first is zeroth, no need to insert an extra vowel
There’s no such thing as “zeroith” because it’s called “zeroth — being numbered zero in a series”
This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn’t also want to equate index and offset.
You’re right that first may be read as “opposite of last”, that would add to the confusion, but that’s just natural language not being precise enough.
Edit: spelling
Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you’re presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you’re asked, that’s not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least
Americans also index their building floors from 1
A two storey American building has floors 1 and 2, where elsewhere they might be ground (zero) and 1.
Not only them, and I’m not here to blame 😅
Indeed, however the Americans stand out in the anglosphere
Canada sad.
They always forget about us.
Which standard does Canada use?
1st floor is the entrance level.
That’s a problem when you get to the fourth.