----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 2003-12-25 04:53
Subject: [USMA:27966] Re: Mixed Bag on
Mars
> Euric wrote:
> >I wonder if the BIPM could ever consider making the bit the SI
> >base unit for
> >the amount of data. The binary SI prefixes would then be applied and be in
> >perfect harmony with the way binary numbers are expressed. Even if the
> >Base-10 prefixes are applied they would have the same meaning as
> >they do with other units.
>
> Unlikely. As I said before, bit is not a unit of measure. It's a discrete
> element. We count bits; we do not measure them. The same is true of bytes.
>
> Your 4.7004 bits example is impossible. There can only ever be an integral
> number of on/off states.
> >I wonder if the BIPM could ever consider making the bit the SI
> >base unit for
> >the amount of data. The binary SI prefixes would then be applied and be in
> >perfect harmony with the way binary numbers are expressed. Even if the
> >Base-10 prefixes are applied they would have the same meaning as
> >they do with other units.
>
> Unlikely. As I said before, bit is not a unit of measure. It's a discrete
> element. We count bits; we do not measure them. The same is true of bytes.
>
> Your 4.7004 bits example is impossible. There can only ever be an integral
> number of on/off states.
I gave such an example? I don't
recall giving such an example. Of course there can only be an integral
number of bits. That could be specified in the definition of the
bit. There can be 4.700 4 Mibit or 4.700 4 Mbit.
Euric
