vpFREE2 Forums

ScientificTidbits- "K" -Digital VP and W2Gs

In the recent digests there was a missing "K" reference. It is my
understanding that "K" actually means two to the tenth power which is
1024 in the decimal system, but is an approximation of ten to the
third power in base ten.

Did "K" actually mean 1,000 before the digital age?

So has anyone thought how easy math might be in the digital age if we
only had eight fingers and eight toes? Someone must have written an
article, essay or book by now addressing this issue. Anyone know of
any?

Binary-Octal-Hexidecimal...how about 4 or 8 coin max VP? How about a
$1,024 dollar W2G threshhold? Or better yet $4,096 (two to the
twelfth)?

Just being goofy...1+1=10, in some worlds.

BS

bluestreak86001 wrote:

In the recent digests there was a missing "K" reference. It is my
understanding that "K" actually means two to the tenth power which is
1024 in the decimal system, but is an approximation of ten to the
third power in base ten.

<shrug> I don't know. The only time I ever seriously considered powers of two is in regard to the binary system typified by computers. Before computers came about, I'd bet few people gave much thought to 1 "k" as somehow _actually_ being 1,024 ... as in 1,024 bytes in a kilobyte, or "kb". Personally, I would have thought that "kilo" is something that just came about as part of the _metric_ system, which has been around a heck of a lot longer than computers and binary files. When I was in school, back when we used slide rules, and no one was even imagining pocket calculators and such, "kilo" was associated with just two things as far as I can recall -- kilogram, which is exactly 1,000 grams (NOT 1,024 grams), and kilometer, which is exactly 1,000 meters (NOT 1,024 meters) ... so I'd say it's a pretty good bet that kilo never meant 1,024 ... and that notion is just some youngster in the computer age transferring his computer-ease over to other things.

Now, you mention (snipped stuff) the ease of digital; well, since you brought it up, let me go further off topic and express how stupid most Americans are to be so resistant to the metric system. What a shame, ... really. And for newbies on this group, I _am_ a proud American -- but I am math/science-minded, and it is idiotic to stick to an awkward, cumbersome, inefficient measurement system that we have, especially with most of the rest of the world using metric.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

You are right, K is short for Kilo (or 1000) and only has the meaning
of 1024 to computer types like myself. Same is true for M (1,000,000)
instead of 1024*1024 = 1,048,576.

The computer company I worked for use to advertise this as 1.048M
instead of one megabyte order to make it look bigger. Either way is
accurate (?) depending on your audience.

Dick

bluestreak86001 wrote:

> In the recent digests there was a missing "K" reference. It is my
> understanding that "K" actually means two to the tenth power

which is

> 1024 in the decimal system, but is an approximation of ten to the
> third power in base ten.

<shrug> I don't know. The only time I ever seriously considered

powers

of two is in regard to the binary system typified by computers.

Before

computers came about, I'd bet few people gave much thought to 1 "k"

as

somehow _actually_ being 1,024 ... as in 1,024 bytes in a kilobyte,

or

"kb". Personally, I would have thought that "kilo" is something

that

just came about as part of the _metric_ system, which has been

around a

heck of a lot longer than computers and binary files. When I was

in

school, back when we used slide rules, and no one was even

imagining

pocket calculators and such, "kilo" was associated with just two

things

as far as I can recall -- kilogram, which is exactly 1,000 grams

(NOT

1,024 grams), and kilometer, which is exactly 1,000 meters (NOT

1,024

meters) ... so I'd say it's a pretty good bet that kilo never meant
1,024 ... and that notion is just some youngster in the computer

age

transferring his computer-ease over to other things.

Now, you mention (snipped stuff) the ease of digital; well, since

you

brought it up, let me go further off topic and express how stupid

most

Americans are to be so resistant to the metric system. What a

shame,

... really. And for newbies on this group, I _am_ a proud

American --

but I am math/science-minded, and it is idiotic to stick to an

awkward,

cumbersome, inefficient measurement system that we have, especially

with

ยทยทยท

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:

most of the rest of the world using metric.

Cheers.

Bill Velek