| Revision as of 17:39, 11 August 2023 editJorge Stolfi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers27,608 edits →Excessive but pointless examples: new sectionTags: Reverted New topic← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:07, 26 December 2024 edit undoTom94022 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,106 edits →Multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two??: I think there is an RS for 1024 |
| (20 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
| ⚫ |
<!-- Please make your edits below the TOC line, or better yet, add a new section --> |
|
|
{{WPMeasure|class=B|importance=Mid |
|
{{WikiProject Measurement|importance=Mid |
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy --> = yes |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy --> = yes |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
| b6 <!--Accessible --> = yes |
|
| b6 <!--Accessible --> = yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject Computing|class=B|importance=high|software=yes|hardware=yes|hardware-importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=high|software=yes|hardware=yes|hardware-importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
<!-- Please make your edits below the TOC line, or better yet, add a new section --> |
|
{{Selfref|For guidelines on using binary prefixes on Misplaced Pages, see ].}} |
|
{{Selfref|For guidelines on using binary prefixes on Misplaced Pages, see ].}} |
|
{{archives|index=/Archive index}} |
|
{{archives|index=/Archive index}} |
| Line 32: |
Line 34: |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two?? == |
|
== Excessive but pointless examples == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRT "A binary prefix is a unit prefix that indicates a multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two". Is it? Or is it a power of 1024? Yes, they are all powers of 2, but calling them that seems misleading. That they are power of 2 doesn't seem like the most central defining property of this set of multiples. ] (]) 20:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: If we had names for other powers of two, they too would be called binary prefixes. The fact that we find only a certain subset of these prefixes convenient enough for general use to create a name does not mean that we should necessarily use the smallest (obvious) category that contains this subset. And no, it is not misleading: it is predicated on the practicality of implementing memory sizes as powers of 2, not of 1024. When the prefixes 'centi', 'deci', 'deca' and 'hecto' fall into disuse, will it be misleading to call the remaining prefixes (all of which are powers of 1000) "decimal prefixes"? (Actually, these are more commonly called "]es", but that is an even vaguer category.) —] 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::{{ping|Stevebroshar}} has a valid point. ''Binary prefixes'' historically are defined in positive integer powers of 1024 and are likely to continue to do so. They go back to the approximate equivalence of 1,024 to 1,000 and unlike metric prefixes are not defined for each power of the base number to a maximum and not to a minimum at all. Whether the rarely used metric prefixes fall into disuse or not is irrelevant, they would remain defined. I think we would have to find an RS to change the article to state "positive integer powers of 1024" but with one I would support such a such a change. ] (]) 20:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
There have been literally millions of documents (manuals, articles, spec sheets, etc.) that used decimal prefixes to mean binary ones. The examples cited in the article are at the same time too few and too many. The text should be heavily summarized, and the references should be pruned to the most notable references, that are not dead links and have not been modified. ] (]) 17:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::I agree with both of you to some extent. I agree that if there was a prefix that was binary and not a factor of 1024, it could be called a binary prefix ... as that is an accurate description. But, there aren't any. Is it reasonable to describe something that doesn't exist? And I think likely never will? ... Thing is, there's no RS for the current definition :o) This article seems to conflate a general definition of binary prefix with the IEC standard that defines powers of 1024. Is the article about the general definition? If so, what sources back that? If it's more strictly about the IEC standard prefixes, then I think it reasonable to highlight that they are powers of 1024, not 2. ] (]) 15:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::WRT metric: this article is not about metric prefixes except from a historical perspective -- the binary prefixes were created since the metric prefixes are not suitable for (binary) computing. Therefore, what's true about metric seems to have little bearing on what these binary prefixes are. But, if you want go down that rabbit hole: Metric does have some sizes that are not factors of 1000, but in the context of computing, we only use the 1000-based guys. Metric has subdivisions of the base unit that the binaries don't. They are similar yet different animals. ... One might call metric 1000-based with a few exceptions. Along that line, it seems reasonable to simplify the definition of binary prefixes as 1024-based. ] (]) 15:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Clause 4 of ISO/IEC 80000:13-2008 is entitled "'''Prefixes for binary multiples'''" and lists the prefixes as positive powers of 2<sup>10</sup); I think this enough of a reliable source to state binary prefixes are defined in positive integer powers of 1024. The fact that SI (metric?) prefixes happen to be defined in integer powers of ten is not particularly relevant. Should we go forward with the change and see what it provokes? ] (]) 07:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
WRT "A binary prefix is a unit prefix that indicates a multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two". Is it? Or is it a power of 1024? Yes, they are all powers of 2, but calling them that seems misleading. That they are power of 2 doesn't seem like the most central defining property of this set of multiples. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
