[insert a well-rounded, and logical argument here]

... Great, now I really don't know what I think anymore. — Fire Ologist

This is not to say I do not have an ego, I certainly do, but I can cope with being wrong at times in a much better way than others it seems.
— Zolenskify

The only person here who ever said anything about "ego" was you. People replied to your poorly-made OP and you went on a rant like you were deeply hurt. Did you take LSD and suddenly made up your mind that you are enlightened? Because you are not. — Lionino

programmatically in Python:

rocks = 0 # beginning at 0
while rocks < 2:
rocks += 1
print(rocks)

output = [1, 2] # correct output


rocks = 1 # beginning at 1
while rocks < 2:
rocks += 1
print(rocks)

output = [2] # incorrect output — punos

Every computer programmer knows that counting begins at 0. — punos

"Counting" may start at 1. Numbers, however, do not "start" (i.e. begin / end). — 180 Proof

I think you read way more into my saying that I can't change your mind. It was not meant as a comment on the openness of you and your question, and it was not a comment my own abilities; it was a comment on the nature of numbers and the number 1. By saying "it's too, late" I meant that we've already started using numbers, and when we started, we were at "1". — Fire Ologist

I just meant it makes sense to me that 1 has to be the first number. I gave my arguments for that to demonstrate my first impression of the question you've raised. So far, I can't change my own mind, so I can't argue something that might change your mind. And I don't yet see there is any reason to think differently. Not yet, but I'm open to it. — Fire Ologist

The best summary of my thinking here is the notion of starting. If we are asking a question about a start, about starting something, like numbers, we are already in a position only to say "1", first. We can't start with anything else but the first, which numerically, is "1". — Fire Ologist

Because "1" is built into starting something, I don't see how to argue anything else but "1". — Fire Ologist

In this context counting physical objects like rocks can be a bit confusing to some because it's not always clear what exactly is being counted. On the other hand, counting time is more straightforward.

For example, when counting days, day 1 is considered at the end of the day, with the beginning of that day being counted as 0 and ending with count 1. The next day begins at 1 and ends at count 2. Therefore, 1 is the first complete count, but for this to be true, the count must begin at 0. — punos

When counting rocks, what is actually being counted is the space the rock occupies. This can be seen as the space between 0 and 1 being counted as 1 (the counted entity is contained between 0 and 1). If a rock didn't occupy any space, there would be nothing to count, as there can't be a rock that takes up no space — punos

but a 0th rock does not exist
— Zolenskify

Saying someone has 0 rocks is not the same as "there is a 0th rock" — one is a nonsensical statement, the other is not. There is a difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers — I learned that in my first year of school.

Well, I don't know your personal life, or where or when you went to school. But I can appreciate you wanting to share that information with me. I see the appeal to online discussion forms, and the advantages of being social to complete strangers; some of us are just unconfident in ourselves, but I promise you it is only temporary, things will get better with enough patience and experience. So, I see where you are coming from and, again, I appreciate your opening up to me like that.

"if I am a sea turtle, then I am Bill Gates (or [insert favorite billionaire])."

We certainly could make this argument, it's not wrong, but anyone who wishes to entertain this would be wasting time
— Zolenskify

No we couldn't, it is wrong. Bill Gates and a sea turtle are mutually exclusive.

Well remember, that is just the way you see things. But like I said, if you want to entertain the argument, I am open to it.

If I am a sea turtle, then there exists any number of abstract realities in which anything we want to happen, can happen. Because we are starting the premise off with a statement that is strictly hypothetical, then any conclusions that follow are also hypothetical, and can be totally imaginary if want them to. For instance, if you had decent taste, then I am the Mad Hatter. As such, I can go an do all sorts of things the Mad Hatter does, like, say, enjoying a tea party. In fact, here is a whole list of things that I could now go an do: https://facts.net/lifestyle/entertainment/17-facts-about-mad-hatter-alice-in-wonderland/#:~:text=In%20Wonderland%2C%20the%20Mad%20Hatter,clock%2C%20always%20on%20an%20unbirthday. Further, I would be portrayed by Johnny Depp in the movie "Alice in Wonderland," 2010. And in this situation, it is a deep honor to be portrayed by such an esteemed artist and actor. But either way, the premise is hypothetical, so the follow up to that is inconsequential; so, no Johnny Depp sadly.

really take some time and educate yourself on the various domains, genus', orders, etc, of the species before jumping to any sort of conclusions here
— Zolenskify

I don't think I need to educate myself on grade school biology, thanks.

You're welcome, but I really think you're wrong here. A well-rounded understanding of the natural sciences is important for any thinker to be able to carry themselves in a sound manner. But, you are free to disagree if you want.

At any rate, I think it agreeable to say that we should come prepared for any sort of discussion, as to not waste time on preliminary information. Just a thought, it may serve you in the future.
— Zolenskify

There is no discussion, you started a thread with a claim that no mathematician will entertain — because first of all, what does the phrase "numbers start" even mean? You used an analogy which relies on the semantics of the English language to prove your claim and I showed another analogy using English that makes the contrary claim. Your OP does not even fulfill criterion B on how to make a new thread.

You are conflating counting (which assumes some existential statement) and mathematics, those two are not the same¹. Overall, another horrible thread by someone who did not research the topic they are starting. Here, have fun: https://web.math.ucsb.edu/~padraic/ucsb_2014_15/ccs_proofs_f2014/ccs_proofs_f2014_lecture4.pdf

1: Don't reply to this with a cut-off quotation that says "Mathematics is the study of counting", read the rest of the quote.

First off, I couldn't agree more. That's pretty much the exact reason why I believe you're here too, entertaining this discussion. Not withstanding, your definition of a mathematician can only be so accurate, considering your knowledge of natural sciences. So, I really can't be asked to take everything you say to heart. But I do see your point, mathematics can too be entertaining, in very much the same way as, say, grade school biology. It just depends on how much we are willing to sacrifice to learn to the topic. Anyways, I don't know how often you come across dictionaries, but either way you put it, we are conversing on a forum, you know, the place where discussions happen. Now, whether or not your arguments within these discussions are grounded in reality is another story.

At any rate, I don't see how your logic is any less "non-sensical" than mine. By your logic, before I pick up anything I have 0 of it. In that case, I technically have, in my possession, every conceivable object in the known universe and beyond - only I have 0 of them; and well, that's just too much for anyone, let alone one unversed in the natural sciences to handle. Nonetheless, I thank you for the thoughts, I will think deeply on these. — Lionino

I can't change your mind. I think it's too late. — Fire Ologist