Rubbish, perplexed, overcomplicated explanation that should be simpliefied. Got negative from me.

Fix the description, because it makes no sense. And learn how to clearly rely ideas.

Ok, I changed it to indexes. Now, I'll go back about where is the ambiguity:

ambiguity
/ˌambɪˈɡjuːɪti/
noun
the quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness.

Now tell me, how would you interprete indices there if not as a synonym of indexes?

If it wasn't ambigous I wouldn't bother, but I did, didn't I?

More serious though - it was just a suggestion. According to Oracle:

"Indices" is the mathematical formulation whereas in publishing they use "indexes" (which is probably why so many people in IT consider "indices" to be more correct than "indexes").

I think that a table index is analogous to an index in a book rather than an exponent in maths, so the publishing variant is the appropriate plural to use in this context.

Furthermore, at least in Oracle, the data dictionary views are called DBA_INDEXES, ALL_INDEXES and USER_INDEXES. It is usually a good idea to employ the same terminology which the domain uses."

And Microsoft:

"Use indexes as the plural form of index. Use indices only in the context of mathematical expressions."

I think if you can spare another person ambiguity, then its worth to at least add /indexes.

Isn't indices a plural form of index? Why do you say it's ambiguous? In the description there are two examples where you can see the arrays/lists are zero-indexed.

Your description is ambigues. Use or add 'index', instead of indices. Use programing language, not mathematical if you can help it.

Thank U

Incorrect. You will get incompatible types error.

Who needs ASCII tables.

“Simplicity is the ultimate form of sophistication.” ― Leonardo da Vinci