That's the exact point I was making by context.. Thanks for adding to it. Stan Doore
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ezra Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 11:44 PM Subject: [USMA:28022] RE: Moral Issue?... > Actually, the term "megabyte" denotes 1,048,576 (equal to 2**20) bytes, not 1,000,000 bytes. > Similarly, "kilobyte" denotes 1,024 (equal to 2**10) bytes, not 1,000 bytes. > > That's why you can't use the SI prefixes in a binary context without overloading them. It's cleaner to have a one-to-one correspondence between syntax and semantics, which leads you to creating different prefixes to denote certain powers of two. > > Ezra > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "G. Stanley Doore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Dec 28, 2003 3:37 PM > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [USMA:28020] RE: Moral Issue?... > > The binary system is based on 2s not tens. > 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048 etc are binary numbers not rounded > numbers. Binary is the most efficient use in hardware design and logic. > Special hardware was developed for the base 10 system because base 10 is > what the general public uses. > > People who deal in binary and bytes understand that the prefixes in 1 000s > or 1/1 000s know the prefixes do represent exact binary numbers. The > standard prefixes are for ease of use. > > The SI prefix definitions remain unchanged. Mega still means millions etc. > regardless of the unit. For example megapixels still means millions of > pixels. Megasbits still means millions of bits etc. In dealing in the > context of pure binary, the prefixes do not mean exact binary numbers. > > Stan Doore > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 4:48 PM > Subject: [USMA:28018] RE: Moral Issue?... > > > Marcus Berger wrote: > "For instance, I'd much rather see 10-bit, 100-bit buses than the current > 16, 32, 64, etc... Nothing, *technically* would make such construction > wrong or flawed IMHO. It's just a pity that someone "decided" to call 8 > bits a byte, as opposed to 10 being a bite." > > We've been over this ground before, Marcus. A 10-bit bus wouldn't make a > computer any less binary. > > The range of memory that would be addressable over a 10-bit bus would be > 2^10. Each of the memory elements thus addressable could have any number of > bits. For consistency with your approach, each element might contain 10 > bits. Again, the largest binary number that could be stored in that memory > element would be 2^10-1. The size of the largest decimal number would be > dependent on how one structured bit groups for expressing decimal digits. In > fact, for the storage of decimal numbers, a bit group containing a multiple > of 4 bits would work better. A 12-bit group would be good for decimal > numbers from 0 to 999 (10^3-1). However, used in binary fashion, it could > accommodate numbers from 0 to 4095 (2^12-1). > > As a 4-bit group, used for decimal digits, would only use 10 of the 16 > possible combinations, it would only be 62.5% efficient (as would any > multiple of a 4-bit group). Used for binary numbers, it's 100% efficient (as > is any number of bits). > > Bill Potts, CMS > Roseville, CA > http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > >
