Computer languages are just as bad.

 

"from m to n" now means [m..n] inclusive, although English

was never so unambiguous prior to computer languages. Fortran

never took a stand, as it simply used "1,N", and didn't use

an English word.

 

I have always advocated "from m upto n" for the non-inclusive [m..n),

since this matches 0-origin indexing much better than the "to" form:

"from 0 upto length(vector)".

>>

 

Now, I don't think it's such a bad thing that math or computer languages

use ambiguous English to mean unambiguous things.  Virtually any English

word is somewhat ambiguous (multibiguous?), and it seems wworthwhile

to use English words & phrases in math and computer languages instead

of making up a new word for every concept or operation.

 

In computer languages, you just have to learn them, that all there is to it.

 

In math, there are a number of cases where "standardized" language really isn't

standard, even for the simplest things.  Does "the natural numbers N" mean

{1,2,3,...} or {0,1,2,3,...}?  Depends who you ask.

 

(On the other hand, I don't know if I think using "upto" to denote

"up to but not including" is all that unambiguous; it's almost unambiguous for

the opposite meaning:  If in English someone says "He took care of those files up to Q, but no further", it would seem quite clear that Q was included.)

 

--Dan