Talk:Binary prefix: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:30, 22 March 2024 editAndyTheGrump (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,013 edits Undid revision 1214924303 by 2806:2F0:90C1:D7B9:9993:FD3E:ACF2:B5 (talk) rv nonsenseTags: Undo Reverted← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:24, 26 December 2024 edit undoStevebroshar (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,708 edits →Multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two??
(11 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 34:		Line 34:
	\|}		\|}

			== Multiple of a unit of measurement by an integer power of two?? ==
	== ISO is more recognizable than IEC ==

			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)
	I propose that all references in the article and the tables to IEC binary prefixes should be modified to refer to ISO binary prefixes or ISO/IEC binary prefixes. ISO is simply more recognizable than IEC. ] (]) 18:49, 28 January 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)
			:::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)

Latest revision as of 09:24, 26 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement

Computing: Software High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	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 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 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)

Clause 4 of ISO/IEC 80000:13-2008 is entitled "Prefixes for binary multiples" and lists the prefixes as positive powers of 2; 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? Tom94022 (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: