Talk:Power of two

Some patterns I noticed that might be placed in the article: No exponent of two is divisible by and odd number, or at least 3. The other one would best be expressed square root of 2ⁿ=2^(n-1) where n=or>4. Someone make that a formula for me. Can anyone check these for me? 141.156.190.218 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "nonnegative integer" in the article. Now, 0 is the first nonnegative integer, 1 is the second, 2 is the third, 3 is the fourth, etc. However, 8, which corresponds to the exponent of 3, is thought of as the third power of 2, not the fourth, and 1 is thought of as the zeroth. Any modifications to the first paragraph of the article?? Georgia guy 21:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of tricky. In common parlance we say that a is the cth power of b if a = b^c, even if it is not the cth in a list of nonnegative powers of b. I've even heard people say "the one-halfth power" for the square root. It's a bit sloppy, and maybe we can rephrase it, but it's pretty common. Deco 02:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Categories for binary number algorithms

I think rounding to nearest power of two number should be put to some algorithm/computer arithmetic category, or even some other article. Rounding to nearest power of two is often related to computer programs and it would make sense to have some article/category listing the relevant methods. Any ideas which category/article? Shd 16:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First forty-one powers of 2

This phrase can be reworded as "first through forty-first", not "zeroth through fortieth". Any faulty thinking?? Georgia guy 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radix vs Power

This page seems to confuse radix-2 with power of 2. Radix 2 implies 2 to the n (2ⁿ), while power of 2 implies "n to the power of 2" or n². This is a common mistake, so I have tried to fix those improper references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.242.3.72 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think there is a mistake? Every Google hit for "powers of two" I can find refers to 2^n. 18:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What's 5 to the power of 2? 25. What's 2 to the power of 5? 32. This is a mistake simply because it is truly not right. It is, in fact, a common error, usually made by people with either 1) little education or 2) little command of the English language. What's "popular" is not always right; what's right is not always popular. Why don't you look up Radix-2 and Radix-4 FFT definitions and try to figure out how they got their name? You are perpetuating a common error that only serves to add confusion to a discipline which requires precise language usage. Petersk 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]