Talk:Binary prefix: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
→Power of two: rp |
→Power of two: rp |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
:I agree with Jeh. In an encyclopedia giving the reader the correct answer is more important than giving the reader an east to understand answer. Anybody who can't grasp the concept of powers of 1024 won't be able to grasp the concept of a binary prefix anyway. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 00:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
:I agree with Jeh. In an encyclopedia giving the reader the correct answer is more important than giving the reader an east to understand answer. Anybody who can't grasp the concept of powers of 1024 won't be able to grasp the concept of a binary prefix anyway. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 00:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
:This has nothing to do with precision but with teaching. Precision is not sacrificed at all, especially as it drills further down in the next section and with table. It is pedagogical to drill down, not up. [[User:Kbrose|Kbrose]] ([[User talk:Kbrose|talk]]) 01:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
:This has nothing to do with precision but with teaching. Precision is not sacrificed at all, especially as it drills further down in the next section and with table. It is pedagogical to drill down, not up. [[User:Kbrose|Kbrose]] ([[User talk:Kbrose|talk]]) 01:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
:: We should not teach what is not true. Or what is misleading. The current opening sentence is misleading. Your point about starting with "powers of 2" and then narrowing it would be more defensible if we were writing a tutorial for those with perhaps a sixth-grade level of prior knowledge in arithmetic. But that's not our target audience and we don't have to start at such a beginner level, only to contradict ourselves in the same graf. The link to the term "binary prefix" is still established. [[User:Jeh|Jeh]] ([[User talk:Jeh|talk]]) 03:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: We should not teach what is not true. [[User:Jeh|Jeh]] ([[User talk:Jeh|talk]]) 03:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:32, 12 March 2019
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: 60 days |
Measurement (defunct) | ||||
|
Computing: Software B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
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
|
|
table that was formerly in lede, preserved here
IEC Binary Prefixes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Power of two
As an introduction for the article it is much more useful to first state that the prefixes are powers of two, which is intuitive for people to make the correlation to BINARY, even if they struggle to grasp powers of 1024. The next paragraph of the lead even goes into this detail. The sentence states that binary prefixes represent *a* power of two, not *every* power of two. This is no different than in the decimal system of prefixes. Kbrose (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'd agree. I think the wikilink to Powers of two is a better choice than to Exponentation. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer technical precision to "easier to understand". Please note the first columns of each of the two parts of the table that's shown in the lede. The focus is clearly on powers of 1024. Jeh (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Jeh. In an encyclopedia giving the reader the correct answer is more important than giving the reader an east to understand answer. Anybody who can't grasp the concept of powers of 1024 won't be able to grasp the concept of a binary prefix anyway. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with precision but with teaching. Precision is not sacrificed at all, especially as it drills further down in the next section and with table. It is pedagogical to drill down, not up. Kbrose (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- We should not teach what is not true. Or what is misleading. The current opening sentence is misleading. Your point about starting with "powers of 2" and then narrowing it would be more defensible if we were writing a tutorial for those with perhaps a sixth-grade level of prior knowledge in arithmetic. But that's not our target audience and we don't have to start at such a beginner level, only to contradict ourselves in the same graf. The link to the term "binary prefix" is still established. Jeh (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Categories:
- 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