Why isn't 0 in A034710?

[Max Alekseyev]

On 9/21/07, David Wilson <davidwwilson at comcast.net> wrote:

> > Even having 0 in the sequence shouldn't change
> > the offset to 0. As many other sequences representing certain subsets
> > of the integers, it should have the offset 1.
>
> Mentally, I tend to classify most sequences as function-type sequences
> (where the values are a function of the indices) or set-type sequences
> (where the elements satisfy a property). set-type sequences have distinct
> elements, and if they have no negative elements, they are increasing.
>
> When I encounter such an increasing set-type sequence of nonnegative
> integers, I usually consider 0 as a sort of optional element (since
> sometimes the inclusion of 0 in the sequence is arguable, or else the reader
> is interested only in positive elements of the set). If 0 is in the
> sequence, I index starting at 0 (so that a(0) = 0), otherwise, I start at 1.
> That way, nonnegative (positive) indices map to nonnegative (positive)
> values, and a(1) is always the first positive element. This works quite
> nicely, and avoids having to adjust the index and potentially invalidate
> formulae if we later decide to add or omit 0.

David, I understand your approach but what's about other people?
Say, I follow another approach: all my set-type sequences have the
constant offset equal 1, no matter have they zero as the first element
or not.
Shouldn't this be somehow standardized?
Neil, what is your policy?

Regards,
Max