You say megabyte, I say mebibyte

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:31:21 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_ DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>"kony" <spam DeleteThis @spam.com> wrote in message
>news:potpq3pes6gir1tu4ibib8ftkv806262ur@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 14:56:42 -0000, "GT"
>> <ContactGT_remove_ DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I
>>>have yet to see a single reply (quoting Wikipedia indicates a lost
>>>argument!) that supports your argument that Mega is 2^20.
>>
>> Ok, here ya go:
>> http://www.dramexchange.com/
>
>Very interesting, but I see nothing on there from any authority stating a
>change in the standard SI terms, therefore your post re-inforces the point
>that there is no change to that standard meaning of the SI unit Mega - mega
>is 10^6.
>

You see every listing of memory chips in the industry
standard terms based upon the binary values not your 10^6
value. The standard is based upon the USE of the term, all
along, not what some 3rd party comes along and says it means
later. Also, you still haven't shown any example of anyone
using the term to mean what you claim before a few years
ago, making it awefully funny to suggest the standard is
what nobody was using.
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:38:29 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"kony" <spam.RemoveThis@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:bmtpq3l64c3p2nmsqbpq255i1d2caskq5r@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:26:51 -0000, "GT"
>> <ContactGT_remove_.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That is where you all make your mistake. The prefix / term Mega does not
>>>have 2 meanings. It has 1 meaning - 10^6 AKA 1 million. 2^20 is not Mega -
>>>it is commonly mistaken for Mega, but is not Mega.
>>>
>>
>> Wanna bet? You might have some memory in your computer,
>> care to tell us how the manufacturer (following
>> international standards) rates it's capacity?
>
>Bet accepted:
>The label suggests that this DIMM should be capable of holding 1GB, which as
>we know from th SI units is 1x10^9, or 1,000,000,000 Bytes.

Nope, as we know based upon the standard used for years,
it's a respresentation of a binary value.


>However the DIMM
>actually holds 1,073,741,824 Bytes, or 1.07 * 10^9 (or GB). The label is
>unfortunately under-stating the capacity of the DIMM by 7%.

Nope, memory is based on binary values, read the actual chip
spec sheets and you will see this.
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:41:14 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"kony" <spam.DeleteThis@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:k6upq39p1lpvounaokptvos6ug1iuo1d0s@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:49:38 -0000, "GT"
>> <ContactGT_remove_.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mega is a standard term meaning 10^6.
>>
>> Except in the computer industry.
>
>No, in every industry - it is a *standard*.

You don't know what a standard is. As already stated, the
standard is what those actually using the terms settled on,
and kept using for decades.

Again I ask for an example of someone using the terms (which
they'd have to, for it to be the standard) more than a few
years ago in which the use agrees with your definition.

You are essentially trying to claim everyone using the term
did it wrong up until recent years when a few people wanted
to _change_ the term. Whether you feel it was wrong or not,
that it was the industry's accepted and vast majority use is
what made it the standard.
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:48:38 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_ DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:


>Several points here:
>1. 10^6 for Mega is not my definition - its a standard.

Nobody declared Mega a valid prefix for -bits, -bytes, until
the computer industry had already standardized the terms to
be representations of binary values, in a binary number
system where base 2, not base 10, determines the values.


>2. It doesn't matter how many people get it wrong, the standard is there -
>live with it.

That's not what a standard is. A standard doesn't wait for
some group to invent it, when it has already been used for
many years. Nobody used the term to mean what you suggest
because those using the term realized it is a decimal
representation of a binary value.

Because you don't understand that it is a decimal
representation, you don't understand why it is necessary it
be a specific binary value not based on powers of 10. It
was clearly the standardized way to express values long
before NIST tried to step in and muddy the waters. Nobody
was using the term as you suggested until recently, doing so
contrary to the majority use for many years, making it
impossible that the standard is actually what you claim.

It does matter, it was all the people using the term,
including scientists who realized it was a decimal
representation of a binary value, for decades that made it
the standard when nobody was using the term the way you
insist must be the standard.

How long have people called dogs, "dogs"?
We don't need to know the exact date this began, but we see
it is a fairly standard term. There is a more scientific
name for a dog too, but if some group demanded that from now
on, the term "dog" means a horse, does that change what the
term means? No.
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

On 12 Feb, 14:26, "GT" <ContactGT_remo... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> [very snipped]!
>
> >> <ContactGT_remo... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> So to recap 1,048,576 is not Mega!
> > <jameshanle... DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> > depends on context
>
> Context is irrelevant as this prefix can go before any unit to express a
> quantity. If we are counting binary digits, TV screens, coin tosses, chips,
> colours or eggs it doesn't matter 1000 bits is the same *quantity* as 1000
> cars.


If you want to use those terms, like unit.. That is fine.

As you should know.

What I have been saying. Mega is a different unit depending on
context. In the computer world, then it depends - as described.
Outside of it, it is as you say.

If you could not anticipate that response from me and deal with it
then, then you are a fool.

Anyhow.

By the way, your mathematical mistake earlier, was not realising that
that 2^20 is 1 followed by 20 zeros, if written in binary.
(you wrote "base 2 10,000,000,000.")
And I dispute your putting commars in, particularly in groups of 3
from the far right. And we tend to write what base it is afterwards,
but that is a minor flaw.

We would write it like this in binary 100000000000000000000 (base 2)
I cannot put subscript in a usenet post. If I could then I would have
written 2 in subscript after that number.

The only reason why we write decimal with commars, is because we read
it out with words -
thousand^n, thousand, million(thousand thousand), billion(thousand
million), trillion(thousand billion)

and the words hundred, ten(thirTEE fourTEE, e.t.c.), digit

So we split it into thousands because it makes it easier to see how to
read it in words.

We do not have such a method of reading binary.

Even those prefixes as used in the computer industry are not used like
that to read numbers, (even if we have in mind the binary when we say
Mega,Kilo,e.t.c.) we do not say 65 Mega and 43 Kilo and err 4 hundred
and 2


Grouping binary into 3s (with commars) is grouping it by the 8. We do
not read binary out by the 8. We do not have words for reading binary
out by the 8 in such a way, like we read decimal out by the thousand.
HOWEVER

We may group binary in 3s or 4s, so as to convert it to octal or hex.
(Just as we may space out octal digits so as to convert it into
binary) But we do not use commars when grouping binary into 3s. And it
is for that purpose, of converting it into octal. If we wanted it in
hex we would group it in 4s, with spaces of course too. No commars.

<snip>
> The term mega is very
> commonly misused in the computing industry to represent 2^20, but this is a
> mistake - it does *not* mean that.
>

It was never a mistake by the founding father techies!

It was a wise choice.


It was a choice not to invent a whole load of new words to deal with
these powers of 2. like 1048576, 1024, e.t.c. And it had no bad
ramifications in the technical community. Nor in the (completely
irrelevant to me) end user community (who couldn`t care less anyway,
or if they would care, it would be frustration with a load of new
words)

Many of these people, the early computer scientists, were
mathematicians anyway. And the rest were mathematically sane. And
understood this just as you do, if not better.
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

"kony" <spam.DeleteThis@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3kl1r390h184oglgkg86n4e4b527uevb9f@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:48:38 -0000, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Several points here:
>>1. 10^6 for Mega is not my definition - its a standard.
>
> Nobody declared Mega a valid prefix for -bits, -bytes, until
> the computer industry had already standardized the terms to
> be representations of binary values, in a binary number
> system where base 2, not base 10, determines the values.

Mega is a standard prefix for any units. The computer industry can't change
that. End of story.

>
>>2. It doesn't matter how many people get it wrong, the standard is there -
>>live with it.
>
> That's not what a standard is.

Yes it is.

> Because you don't understand that it is a decimal
> representation, you don't understand why it is necessary it
> be a specific binary value not based on powers of 10. It
> was clearly the standardized way to express values long
> before NIST tried to step in and muddy the waters. Nobody
> was using the term as you suggested until recently, doing so
> contrary to the majority use for many years, making it
> impossible that the standard is actually what you claim.

Wrong, 99% of the population has used the term mega in its correct 10^6 for
decades, centuries.

> It does matter, it was all the people using the term,
> including scientists who realized it was a decimal
> representation of a binary value, for decades that made it
> the standard when nobody was using the term the way you
> insist must be the standard.
>
> How long have people called dogs, "dogs"?
> We don't need to know the exact date this began, but we see
> it is a fairly standard term.

Nice example of why a standard shouldn't be changed. We don't want to change
the standard term for dogs, just because a small proportion of society think
dogs are small black 3 legged wooden horses! A dog is a dog - 4 legged
canine. A mega is a prefix meaning 10^6. Lets leave the standards alone -
they have worked for centuries. If you want to represent things that are
2^20, then come up with a term for it, but you can't steel a long standing
SI unit and change its value! That is ludicrous and leads to confusion and
these kinds of silly discussions!
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

"kony" <spam RemoveThis @spam.com> wrote in message
news:kdl1r3hiosfus7l0uov494k4a42kgb53rt@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:41:14 -0000, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_ RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"kony" <spam RemoveThis @spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:k6upq39p1lpvounaokptvos6ug1iuo1d0s@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:49:38 -0000, "GT"
>>> <ContactGT_remove_ RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mega is a standard term meaning 10^6.
>>>
>>> Except in the computer industry.
>>
>>No, in every industry - it is a *standard*.
>
> You don't know what a standard is. As already stated, the
> standard is what those actually using the terms settled on,
> and kept using for decades.

So you agree that the term mega is the standard that has been defined for
decades. Finally you agree that mega is 10^6 - the defined standard that has
been around for decades, even centuries. Can we stop arguing now?

> Again I ask for an example of someone using the terms (which
> they'd have to, for it to be the standard) more than a few
> years ago in which the use agrees with your definition.

Just search on google for anything mathematical - you'll find millions of
references to mega and other prefixes, dating back for many years before
computers even existed!

> You are essentially trying to claim everyone using the term
> did it wrong up until recent years when a few people wanted
> to _change_ the term. Whether you feel it was wrong or not,
> that it was the industry's accepted and vast majority use is
> what made it the standard.

No, *you* are trying to claim that everyone has been using the wrong term
for centuries and only now have we realised that mega should not mean the
value it has for all those years. You have yet to show us a single
authoritative document indicating the change of use of the term mega fom the
long standing 10^6 standard.
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

On 12 Feb, 16:44, "GT" <ContactGT_remo... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> <jameshanle... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:c3b2ff79-1251-4d2c-b6f2-9ec72e48d3c1@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Feb, 14:26, "GT" <ContactGT_remo... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> [very snipped]!
>
> >> >> <ContactGT_remo... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> So to recap 1,048,576 is not Mega!
> >> > <jameshanle... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> >> > depends on context
>
> >> Context is irrelevant as this prefix can go before any unit to express a
> >> quantity. If we are counting binary digits, TV screens, coin tosses,
> >> chips,
> >> colours or eggs it doesn't matter 1000 bits is the same *quantity* as
> >> 1000
> >> cars.
>
> > If you want to use those terms, like unit.. That is fine.
>
> > As you should know.
>
> > What I have been saying. Mega is a different unit depending on
> > context. In the computer world, then it depends - as described.
> > Outside of it, it is as you say.
>
> You keep saying the same flawed thing. I notice that you have changed your
> wording to *depends* now!

If you read the first post I made in the thread, with quotes from my
discussion with Rod Speed, then you will see that that was always the
case. This was exactly what he said. But since you replied that you
did not understand it, and you clearly had no intention to understand
it. I did not refer to that detail later on, a)because I had already
mentioned it. b)becauseit does not change the argument I gave against
your argument.

<snip>
> > If you could not anticipate that response from me and deal with it
> > then, then you are a fool.
>
> Response expected, predictable and flawed!
>

If you expected me to respond as I did then you should have tried to
refute it there and then. Instead of provoking a response.. You stupid
troll (stupid, because you do not even know you are trolling)

<snip>

You are merely repeating things you have already said. Things that I
already responded to. You managed to ignore my responses, you did so
by not replying to them, and simply butting your old argument to me
elsewhere in the thread. So I responded to them elsewhere too, and
then instead of letting discussion go on from there, you ignore my
points, and you throw your stupid argument in again, as if I have not
responded to it.

I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

[very snipped]!

>> <ContactGT_remo... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> So to recap 1,048,576 is not Mega!

> <jameshanle... DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> depends on context

Context is irrelevant as this prefix can go before any unit to express a
quantity. If we are counting binary digits, TV screens, coin tosses, chips,
colours or eggs it doesn't matter 1000 bits is the same *quantity* as 1000
cars.

Mega is 1,000,000. There is plain and simply, NO other mathematical meaning
of the prefix mega (in any context and for any units). Any argument
otherwise is wrong and cannot be proven correct as there has been no change
to the definition of the SI standard term mega! The term mega is very
commonly misused in the computing industry to represent 2^20, but this is a
mistake - it does *not* mean that.

To reply to Kony - there are many examples of mega meaning 1,000,000 in the
computing industry and these examples date back to its birth. Just look at
data communications. 1 Megabit line (megastream) = 1,000,000 bits. I can't
be bothered looking anything up any more as this argument is a waste of
time. I know what the SI units are and when to use them. I know they
shouldn't be used elsewhere, but their misinterpretation is wide-spread. I
go along with the wrong interpretation myself when talking to other
'computer people', in the same way as I use slang and common street language
when talking to Burberry wearing trash. The reason humans do this is so as
to be understood by those less educated than themselves.
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

<jameshanley39 RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3b2ff79-1251-4d2c-b6f2-9ec72e48d3c1@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 Feb, 14:26, "GT" <ContactGT_remo... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [very snipped]!
>>
>> >> <ContactGT_remo... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> So to recap 1,048,576 is not Mega!
>> > <jameshanle... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> > depends on context
>>
>> Context is irrelevant as this prefix can go before any unit to express a
>> quantity. If we are counting binary digits, TV screens, coin tosses,
>> chips,
>> colours or eggs it doesn't matter 1000 bits is the same *quantity* as
>> 1000
>> cars.
>
> If you want to use those terms, like unit.. That is fine.
>
> As you should know.
>
> What I have been saying. Mega is a different unit depending on
> context. In the computer world, then it depends - as described.
> Outside of it, it is as you say.

You keep saying the same flawed thing. I notice that you have changed your
wording to *depends* now! You are coming round to the truth, but haven't
grasped it with both hands yet. Mega is a SI unit and valid in any context.
Defined here: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/. The only meaning of mega
is 10^6. If you choose to use any value other than that defined in the SI
standard prefix, then your calculations will be wrong and any mathematics
based on them are unreliable - hence all the confusion in Windows when users
examine their disk capacity - the mathematics used in Windows for memory and
file sizes is unreliable and wrong!

> If you could not anticipate that response from me and deal with it
> then, then you are a fool.

Response expected, predictable and flawed!

> By the way, your mathematical mistake earlier, was not realising that
> that 2^20 is 1 followed by 20 zeros, if written in binary.
> (you wrote "base 2 10,000,000,000.")
> And I dispute your putting commars in, particularly in groups of 3
> from the far right. And we tend to write what base it is afterwards,
> but that is a minor flaw.
>
> We would write it like this in binary 100000000000000000000 (base 2)
> I cannot put subscript in a usenet post. If I could then I would have
> written 2 in subscript after that number.

Yes a subscript indication of base is mathematically correct, but I couldn't
do it either in plain text, so picking fault here is pedantic and pointless.
I know I had too few zeros, but despite that, I feel the point was made
anyway.

Incidentally, I'm not sure who your 'we' is supposed to represent, but the
commars are common mathematical practise when writing long numbers. Perhaps
I should have grouped the number into 4 digits blocks to aid hex conversion,
but that really wasn't the point of that post.

> even if we have in mind the binary when we say
> Mega,Kilo,e.t.c.) we do not say 65 Mega and 43 Kilo and err 4 hundred
> and 2

What are you talking about. This reads like a confused child!

If *you* don't want to say 65 Mega Bytes, then that's fine. The rest of the
world is quite happy with this combination of number, followed by prefix and
unit! If you want to represent parts of a Mega or a Kilo thing, then the
format is typically 14.4Kthings

> [snip]
>> The term mega is very
>> commonly misused in the computing industry to represent 2^20, but this is
>> a
>> mistake - it does *not* mean that.
>
> It was never a mistake by the founding father techies!
> It was a wise choice.

Proof of the mistake: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/

> It was a choice not to invent a whole load of new words to deal with
> these powers of 2. like 1048576, 1024, e.t.c. And it had no bad
> ramifications in the technical community. Nor in the (completely
> irrelevant to me) end user community (who couldn`t care less anyway,
> or if they would care, it would be frustration with a load of new
> words)

Poor choice - corrected now: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/

> Many of these people, the early computer scientists, were
> mathematicians anyway. And the rest were mathematically sane. And
> understood this just as you do, if not better.

And now all the work has been formalised: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:24:36 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:


>>>> Except in the computer industry.
>>>
>>>No, in every industry - it is a *standard*.
>>
>> You don't know what a standard is. As already stated, the
>> standard is what those actually using the terms settled on,
>> and kept using for decades.
>
>So you agree that the term mega is the standard that has been defined for
>decades. Finally you agree that mega is 10^6 - the defined standard that has
>been around for decades, even centuries. Can we stop arguing now?

You know quite well that I don't agree mega is defined as
10^6 in the computer industry.


>
>> Again I ask for an example of someone using the terms (which
>> they'd have to, for it to be the standard) more than a few
>> years ago in which the use agrees with your definition.
>
>Just search on google for anything mathematical - you'll find millions of
>references to mega and other prefixes, dating back for many years before
>computers even existed!
>

Yes, except in the computer industry, computer sciences
where it is a representation of a binary value.


>> You are essentially trying to claim everyone using the term
>> did it wrong up until recent years when a few people wanted
>> to _change_ the term. Whether you feel it was wrong or not,
>> that it was the industry's accepted and vast majority use is
>> what made it the standard.
>
>No, *you* are trying to claim that everyone has been using the wrong term
>for centuries and only now have we realised that mega should not mean the
>value it has for all those years. You have yet to show us a single
>authoritative document indicating the change of use of the term mega fom the
>long standing 10^6 standard.
>

Everyone has for years, if you were too young to realize
this it's not my problem.
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

<jameshanley39.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bced249a-bc33-42da-8a22-79c30a1816db@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> If you expected me to respond as I did then you should have tried to
> refute it there and then. Instead of provoking a response.. You stupid
> troll (stupid, because you do not even know you are trolling)

ditto

> <snip>
>
> You are merely repeating things you have already said. Things that I
> already responded to. You managed to ignore my responses, you did so
> by not replying to them, and simply butting your old argument to me
> elsewhere in the thread. So I responded to them elsewhere too, and
> then instead of letting discussion go on from there, you ignore my
> points, and you throw your stupid argument in again, as if I have not
> responded to it.

You still haven't offered any evidence to support your point, therefore
proving that the SI units haven't and won't be changed to your unusual view
of the world.

> I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.

Thank god for that!
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte 

"kony" <spam.RemoveThis@spam.com> wrote in message
news:96b4r35ue63go3m6qaotoru5ovnocuensh@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:24:36 -0000, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Except in the computer industry.
>>>>
>>>>No, in every industry - it is a *standard*.
>>>
>>> You don't know what a standard is. As already stated, the
>>> standard is what those actually using the terms settled on,
>>> and kept using for decades.
>>
>>So you agree that the term mega is the standard that has been defined for
>>decades. Finally you agree that mega is 10^6 - the defined standard that
>>has
>>been around for decades, even centuries. Can we stop arguing now?
>
> You know quite well that I don't agree mega is defined as
> 10^6 in the computer industry.

Many people agree with you. Many agree with me. Let's get on with more
important things!
 >> Stay informed about: You say megabyte, I say mebibyte