Misplaced Pages

Talk:Binary prefix: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:42, 11 August 2023 editJorge Stolfi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers27,608 edits Bad references: new sectionTags: Reverted New topic← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:15, 25 December 2024 edit undoStevebroshar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,706 edits Multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two??: ReplyTag: Reply 
(18 intermediate revisions by 14 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 ==


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) 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)
== Bad references ==


::{{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)
Many of the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> entries are dead, or are webpages that have been updated since the last access. Many of those entries also lack the date of the document (as opposed to the date of access). Also many of those entries are not source references but footnotes; these must be merged into the text or eliminated. I will try to do some cleanup, but it is a huge task. ] (]) 17:42, 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)

Latest revision as of 15:15, 25 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Binary prefix article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMeasurement (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement
WikiProject iconComputing: Software High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).
For guidelines on using binary prefixes on Misplaced Pages, see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Quantities of bytes and bits.

Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Template-table references removed from article, preserved here

Bit rates (data-rate units)
Name Symbol Multiple
bit per second bit/s 1 1
Metric prefixes (SI)
kilobit per second kbit/s 10 1000
megabit per second Mbit/s 10 1000
gigabit per second Gbit/s 10 1000
terabit per second Tbit/s 10 1000
Binary prefixes (IEC 80000-13)
kibibit per second Kibit/s 2 1024
mebibit per second Mibit/s 2 1024
gibibit per second Gibit/s 2 1024
tebibit per second Tibit/s 2 1024
Multiple-bit units
Decimal
Value Metric
1000 kbit kilobit
1000 Mbit megabit
1000 Gbit gigabit
1000 Tbit terabit
1000 Pbit petabit
1000 Ebit exabit
1000 Zbit zettabit
1000 Ybit yottabit
1000 Rbit ronnabit
1000 Qbit quettabit
Binary
Value IEC Memory
1024 Kibit kibibit Kbit Kb kilobit
1024 Mibit mebibit Mbit Mb megabit
1024 Gibit gibibit Gbit Gb gigabit
1024 Tibit tebibit
1024 Pibit pebibit
1024 Eibit exbibit
1024 Zibit zebibit
1024 Yibit yobibit
Orders of magnitude of data

Multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two??

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)

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 "metric prefixes", but that is an even vaguer category.) —Quondum 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
@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. Tom94022 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2024 (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. Stevebroshar (talk) 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. Stevebroshar (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: