| Revision as of 12:29, 29 March 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,405 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Binary prefix/Archive 18) (botTag: Manual revert← 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 | ||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| | valign="top" | {{Quantities of bits}} | | valign="top" | {{Quantities of bits}} | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == 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. ] (]) 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) | |||
| :::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. |
|
| 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
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
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
- @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)
- B-Class Computing articles
- High-importance Computing articles
- B-Class software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- B-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
- All Software articles
- B-Class Computer hardware articles
- High-importance Computer hardware articles
- B-Class Computer hardware articles of High-importance
- All Computing articles