Talk:Bit

message: Two is to bit as three is to trit as five is to what? I've been calling them quints, but... --Ihope127 17:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it quits. -Splash 22:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or a nybble and a bit. -Splash 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper name would be "quinary digits", so quints is probably as correct as anything. -Splash 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit, trit, dontcare, what? 

message: Thank you all for your comments.  I believe a consensus is now apparent that the 'trivial bits' at the centre of this issue would be more appropriate elsewhere.  To that end, I'll close this RfC ... and will shortly find these puppies a real home. :) E Pluribus Anthony 13:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC conclusion 

message: So a 64-console(or 128, 256 etc. etc.) is a console with a 64-bit byte?
:"N-bit" in game consoles (and for that matter general-purpose computers) is often more of a marketing term than a technical one, but you're right that the article needs to talk about that popular usage, probably in a new section. Most of the details of what it's supposed to mean are described at central processing unit andprocessor register and word. Some of it is also covered at byte, which is a value whose width has varied, but never as large as 64 bits. The width of a processor can be thought of as the largest number that processor can work on in one operation, analogous to the number of fingers and toes you happen to have to count on. In some cases processor width contributes to performance efficiency, hence the marketing usage. - toh 19:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Things like 16-bit have articles, by the way. — Omegatron 00:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  64-bit console 

message: Shouldn't kilobit be written as kb (not Kb) and kilobyte - kB (not KB) because the symbol of kilo- is 'k', not 'K': Kilogram - kg etc...???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo
:Yes, using 'K' instead of 'k' for 'kilo' is sloppy.  Much sloppier, though, is the use of kilo for 1024 instead of 1000.  See binary prefix. -R. S. Shaw 19:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  kilo 

message: It's already been tagged as "citation needed", but as an (admittedly poor) electrical engineer, I must say that this section is misleading at best and possibly flat-out wrong.  I suppose what the author was trying to get at was the difference between Emitter Coupled Logic (ECL) and CMOS or TTL, but the statement made about 0V rarely being used to represent a logical 0 is just plain false.   Similarly, implying that "slightly older devices" (whatever that entirely unspecific statement means) are no longer used is incorrect as well. Devices like those in the 7400 series are CMOS devices that definitely use a 0V-5V scheme and are certainly still widely used today.  65.96.178.66 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representation 

message: I added that information because after skimming the article on the bit, I didn't see any OBVIOUS mention on the byte being 8 bits in length as is used today in modern computers.  Read the article on the byte if confused.  It also states towards the middle, in so many words, on the ubiquitous nature of the byte being 8 bits in length (look up the word "ubiquitous" in Webster's dictionary).  Wikipedia redirects ubiquitous to omnipresence, but still talks about "ubiquity" in the beginning of the article.  Also see bisnotB.com for an obvious entry on today's computer usage of the bit versus byte.  It should also be mentioned here that a bit is a lowerecase "b" and maybe here or in the byte section, a byte is a capital B.  As is used in downloads and transfers, most of the time, the "KB/s" or "kB/s" is used (Kilobytes per second): example... 598KB/s ... which happens to be my max steady download rate.  When talking about mp3s, "Kb" or "kb" is used:  128kbs (128kb/s) or 160kbs (160kb/s).  If you don't believe me on this, right click an MP3 file on your computer if you have one, and check out it's properties in the menu, then click on 'summary', and then 'advanced' if in the 'simple' view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Riojas Mclemore (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit and Byte 

message: Is millibit/microbit/nanobit/picobit for real?Anwar (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are receiving data from your deep-space probe via a weak radio signal, and it takes 2 min to receive 60 bits, your data transfer rate is 500 millibits per second. Indefatigable (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! So it is abstract. But that's a very mischievous way of counting. For instance, consider: statement 1 - the book is on the tablestatement 2 - the table is on the floor conclusion - the book is on the floor.Anwar (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Millibit 

message: I deleted this sentence, as it seems to contain zero bits of useful information:
Gregory Bateson defined a bit as "a difference which makes a difference". ([http://plato.acadiau.ca/courses/educ/reid/papers/PME25-WS4/SEM.html Social Systems)
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted "cute" (non)definition 

message: My take is: A bit is something which represents either 1 or 0 (one or zero). The "something" may be implemented in a variety of systems from computing to telecommunications to DNA.
It certainly isn't "an amount", as said previously, it is a capacity.
The lead seems overweighty, perhaps a lot can be moved into "Representation"? It "can" be... seems a recipe to infinity!
I will have a think! :)
HonestIntelligence (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm

message: I was just reading a fascinating book called "Machine Language for Beginners", which deals with computers that use 6502 processors, and it gives a fascinating explanation that the definition of bit is NOT binary digit but derives from pieces of eight! Anyone able to verify this? -121.216.109.33 (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure that is a false etymology, as the word bit for a binary digit was used long before the firm establishment of a byte being 8 bits. Indefatigable (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pieces of eight 

message: Representation:
I moved a paragraph from the lead here, however the subheading of Transmission and processing says little about either. I'll do something "place holder-y" for the moment! HonestIntelligence (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representation 

message: Any Reference Available for 
 Saganbyte = 1024 Geobyte 
 Pijabyte = 1024 Saganbyte
 Alphabyte = 1024 Pijabyte
 Kryatbyte = 1024 Alphabyte
 Amosbyte = 1024 Kryatbyte
 Pectrolbyte = 1024 Amosbyte
 Bolgerbyte = 1024 Pectrolbyte
 Sambobyte = 1024 Bolgerbyte
 Quesabyte = 1024 Sambobyte
 Kinsabyte = 1024 Quesabyte
 Rutherbyte = 1024 Kinsabyte
 Dubnibyte = 1024 Rutherbyte
 Seaborgbyte = 1024 Dubnibyte
 Bohrbyte = 1024 Seaborgbyte
 Hassiubyte = 1024 Bohrbyte
 Meitnerbyte = 1024 Hassiubyte
 Darmstadbyte = 1024 Meitnerbyte
 Roentbyte = 1024 Darmstadbyte
 Coperbyte = 1024 Roentbyte...
?
if yes then please let me know
Sopan Patil (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The oldest reference I found for the list from Saganbyte to CoperByte is:  Wells50 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

text: When SI or IEC or even JEDEC recognizes these, sure. Until then, no. This isn't the Urban Dictionary, nor Merriam-Webster (i.e. we're not here to document this year's new fad words). Jeh (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Values 

message: This is an excellent question. I've seen these values floating all over the web on various blog posts, all dated from around 2013, with no attribution. I wonder if some random guy just made the list on a lark and it somehow spread around, due to lack of official prefixes. The random jumps between names of minerals and scientific figures, and things like "Infinity" and "Website" seems suspect. A list of corresponding shorthand (like GB for gigabyte) would be nice as well (presumably Brontobyte is BB but Geobyte can't be GB). Here's a bit more info I've found:
Brontobyte and Geobyte (aka Geopbyte / Gegobyte) - Source: Shantanu Gupta, director of Connected Intelligent Solutions for Intel's Data Center and Connected Systems Group. Proposed standard as of 2012, discussed since 1991. De-facto, informal standard.
Saganbyte and Pijabyte - Seem to be accepted by some, but unknown origin and limited real world use.
Alphabyte through Websitebyte - Unknown origin, and no real world use outside of appearing in lists.
Here's the full list of Byte prefixes floating around the web, in ascending order (43 total). Please note that I'm not promoting these, just relaying them.
(0) bit, (1) Byte, Kilobyte, Megabyte, Gigabyte, Terabyte, Petabyte, Exabyte, Zettabyte, Yottabyte, (10) Brontobyte, Geobyte, Saganbyte, Pijabyte, Alphabyte, Kryatbyte, Amosbyte, Pectrolbyte, Bolgerbyte, Sambobyte, (20) Quesabyte, Kinsabyte, Rutherbyte, Dubnibyte, Seaborgbyte, Bohrbyte, Hassiubyte, Meitnerbyte, Darmstadbyte, Roentbyte, (30) Coperbyte, Koentekbyte, Silvanikbyte, Golvanikbyte, Platvanikbyte, Einstanikbyte, Emeranikbyte, Rubanikbyte, Diamonikbyte, Amazonikbyte, (40) Nilevanikbyte, Infinitybyte, Websitebyte.
Sources:
http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/storage-disaster-recovery/exabyte-zettabyte-yottabyte-then-what-opinions-vary/
http://www.technolamp.co.in/2010/12/computer-bit-size-chart-from-bit-to.html
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090219174202AAbjkY4
http://passion4profession.blogspot.com/2013/01/1024-coperbyte.html
http://sanjaal.com/java/tag/hassiubyte/
https://www.ddicomputer.com/?r=support/ViewArticle&id=397
http://thehackeruniversity.blogspot.com/2013/01/file-sizes.html
http://metalop.com/2013/10/16/binary-conversions-you-wont-know-about/
http://hirenchavdahdk.blogspot.com/2013/10/hard-disk-storage-space-units.html
http://www.codeloopers.com/storage-and-usb-devices-f22/what-are-smallest-and-largest-data-bytes-or-byte-scales-t12.html
(web search reveals many more)
97.116.45.199 (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: When SI or IEC or even JEDEC recognizes these, sure. Until then, no. This isn't the Urban Dictionary, nor Merriam-Webster (i.e. we're not here to document this year's new fad words). Jeh (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Prefix Info 

message: Don't we have the 2-bit computing environment?
We have long list of 2-bit logic subject for computing Boolean algebra here.  I haven't seen 2-bit computing out there yet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjluna2 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-Bit 

message: This MOOC (at 6"55) relates the origin of "bit" to Leo Szilard's essay about information theory and Maxwell's Demon in 1929, in which he wrote: "A bit of information is the amount of information needed to answer a fast/slow question, or any yes/no question". Another source for this can be found on the Leo Szilard Online page.
: The following paper by him on 1929 "ON THE DECREASE OF ENTROPY IN A THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM BY THE INTERVENTION OF INTELLIGENT BEINGS" mentions Maxwell's demon but not "bit" at all. As the paper was originally written in German, where "digit" is "Ziffer", there shouldn't be any "bit". Moreover, the paper has, without specifying the base, many expressions of  \log 2  to represent amount of information, which means the base is unlikely to be 2, which, in turn, means the unit of information in the paper is not a bit. --Masataka Ohta (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "we"? Be WP:BOLD Jeh (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think? 77.221.89.89 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older origin for the word "bit" 

message: In order to meet the criteria at Talk:List of common misconceptions, the article Bit would need to say that it is a common and current misconception that people today think that electronic computers are storing and operating on ones and zeroes, as numerals, when in fact these are high and low voltages which can be thought of a representations of true and false or yes and no or many other things depending on the logical operation they are doing. Conceptualizing them as ones and zeroes happens at a higher level. This is commonly taught introductory curriculum as a step towards a more subtle understanding, as the hydraulic analogy is an oversimplification of how electric circuits work.<P>So can we find sources to support this, and add it to this article? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. As pointed out at the other talk page, that's an abstraction, not a misconception. Also, it's the best possible abstraction, because it helps explain how bitwise operations work. If we used Left/Right to indicate the two states of a switch, it would not be easy to explain how something like XOR works. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

text: With positive logic, higher voltage is 1, whereas, with negative logic, higher voltage is 0, as is explained in Logic level. It is a low level convention. But such convention is often meaningless, for example, with Emitter-coupled logic. --Masataka Ohta (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it a common misconception that instructions are ones and zeroes? 

message: @Masataka Ohta, I reverted your addition to the article.  The lede is supposed to be a short and very readable summary of the whole article; see MOS:LEDE.  The content you added, which I found rather difficult to follow, belongs, if anywhere, somewhere in the article body – possibly in the history section?  You should also ensure that everything you write is supported by references to reliable sources and is not based on your own supposition or original research.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition