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)
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 = bc, 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)
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)
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 page is mileading simply because it forces people to look at the context "power of 2" is used in to try to guess what's really meant. As for the Google search: 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 ambiguity that only serves to add confusion to a discipline which requires precise language usage. Petersk 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're playing with words. Anyway, Wikipedia does not allow you to claim that the universally understood meaning of "power of two" is somehow "wrong" unless you can attribute that claim to a reliable source. Melchoir 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, please, just refer to the wikipedia page on radix [1]. I make no additional claim. Both pages cannot be right, unless your page is deliberately ambiguous. Petersk 20:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)