Talk:Bit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

It is stated that decimal forms of the SI factors (10^2, 10^4..) are used when related to telecommunications. Thus we can agree that 56 kilobits per second essentially means 56 000 bits per second. That thus gives us 7 000 bytes per second. However, when we carry on to convert to kilobytes per second, should we not use the binary form of the prefix, i.e. 7 000 bps = 7 000 / 1024 = 6.836 kilobytes per second?

We should not. When talking about telecommunications, use powers of ten always. -(struck by)Splash 19:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Regrettably, the orginal commentor was right. Both the binary forms of the SI factors and the standard ones are used. Bits are always measured in standard SI units, e.g. "103 = kilo", and bytes always on the "210 = kilo" etc scale. So 56kbits is 56000 bits, 7000 bytes and 6.84kbytes. See the binary prefix page. Incidentally, this is the source of much confusion (in the UK) at least, about why people's 1Mbit connection only yields 125kB/sec - the B used by a certain browser is in bytes, not bits. -Splash 19:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
We should use the IEC prefixes whenever it is confusing like this. — Omegatron 18:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I see that it has finally been resolved! =) - original poster

Contents

[edit] bits

isn't a bit also 12.5 cents? as in two bits equating a quarter? as in a shave and a haircut, two bits? if so, that needs to be expressed on this article, and the derivation should be explained to. thank! Kingturtle 23:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I agree that the article should make some observation that it makes sense linguistically to shorten Binary Digit to bit because of the history in English of a bit representing one eighth of a whole, as Binary Digits represent one eighth of a byte. Jlavezzo 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bit, trit, dontcare, what?

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)

Call it quits. -Splash 22:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Or a nybble and a bit. -Splash 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
The proper name would be "quinary digits", so quints is probably as correct as anything. -Splash 23:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What is ten equal to? Tits?--Light current 22:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivial bits

Though I've supported pop culture references in articles before, an arbitrary mention of the number of bits employed by the android from STTNG is far too much of a stretch here; any computer will have storage capacity measured in bits, and including one's particular favourite example just doesn't go. An article on "the bit" is extremely high-level by nature, because it's a fundamental concept of computation (and arguably, the universe). There's no natural place to include the Data mention (a "Trivia" heading doesn't count as natural), and that should have been a clue as to whether it was warranted in the first place. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert the revert; please consider carefully before replacing the section. - toh 02:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

agreed. — Omegatron 03:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree the memory capacity of Data (Star Trek) should not be in the Bit article, just as Data's height should not be in the meter article nor his mass in the gram article. -R. S. Shaw 07:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Define "natural" and arbitrary? Everything discussed therein is artificial, fictional or not. I included mention of Data's storage capacity since it was directly cited in the episode "The Measure of a Man" ("800 quadrillion bits") – when his status as a being vis-à-vis mere repository of information was challenged – and may be interesting, even trivial, for those who 'compare' fundamental concepts of technology with (fictional) "technology". Moreover, head on over to information, artificial intelligence, et al. for a description of concepts relating to said issues, and you'll see that its inclusion is completely relevant. This 'tid-bit' has also been classified as "trivia", so I do not see a reason to remove it.
Moreover, Data's height nor his mass are stated (to my knowledge) and are not issues of point, so these points can't be noted in those articles which are – at least – bona fide basic SI units. Perhaps superlatives for contemporary computers, and not favourites, should also be included here?
Many articles have other sections; if anything, as the topic of this article is such a "high-level" concept, this points to the deficiency of the current article and its need for expansion. Actually, perhaps such removals should be considered carefully (e.g., posing a request for comment here as was done after the fact) before doing so in the first place? Given the fact that this bit of info was around for quite some time before its removal, and my reasons above, I will be restoring this until compelling reasons are provided to remove it. E Pluribus Anthony 08:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I also agree that the information is of such overwhelming triviality to this article that it needn't belong. Put in an article about the character where it will have proper context. -Splashtalk 12:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
If you take a moment and actually glance at that article, it is in there, followed by a comparison. And what Wp policy excludes trivia from articles? To my knowledge: none. Actually, verifiability is the one I cite. Perhaps if various users would spend more time and effort on making substantive contributions and beefing up the present article instead of debating trivia and wikilinks that add value to it, it is (on the contrary) this debate which is elevating the topic beyond trivial. E Pluribus Anthony 13:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, it's already in the relevant article. That means we've no need at all to duplicate it here. Good, good. It can go then. -Splashtalk 13:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Not good ... I don't think so. What's the rationale for exclusion here, based on Wp policy? Sorry! E Pluribus Anthony 13:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
As others have already said, it is irrelevant to an article dealing with the abstract concept of a bit. The fictional storage capacity of one fictional computer is...well...of zero importance. Which, per the guidance in Wikipedia:Trivia#Trivia policy means it should get zero space in this article. Make List of storage capacity in bits of fictional computer characters or something. -Splashtalk 14:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the policy; not only is it helpful, but it proves my point. It is a matter, then, of what is "interesting" and of mild "importance", for reasons cited above (e.g., computers and artificial intelligence): what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. Your determination of nothingness, particularly regarding an abstract concept, is not mine; mine is at least verifiable, nor is its inclusion imbalanced which, if it were, would require edition or removal. In this respect, and in this article, this bit of information will remain until a compelling reason exists to remove it. Good day. E Pluribus Anthony 14:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
In support of my assertion, I have added a real example for this 'abstract' concept ... moreso that present company. How do you like them ... bits? Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 15:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This is the wrong article. The information is already covered in the correct articles. — Omegatron 16:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This is precisely the correct article: it deals with information and units of storage in context. E Pluribus Anthony 17:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Omegatron, Splash, and Toh. In general I don't think 'trivia' sections really belong in encyclopedia articles, and it's too much of a stretch to include the examples that E Pluribus Anthony has presented. By all means, discuss the information capacity of the human brain in brain, and discussion Data's storage in Data. Those little disconnected factoids don't really belong here, in this general overview article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Argh! This would not be so much of a grundging issue if it was addressed two months ago by various users, when the Data factoid was originally added. These bits of information, in this appropriate context, go to the very heart of what information is and how much of it readily apparent examples - us, and a popular sci-fi reference - exhibit. To do so now smacks of a 'fairweather', and slightly POV, attitude to this topic and the information presented thereof; in fact, the debate itself seems rather trivial and hypocritical, not the information in and of itself.
Moreover, if users spent more time and effort enhancing articles, they likely wouldn't be confronted with the presentation of what are characterised as 'trivial' elements to spartan "top-level" articles to begin with, as even a prior user tried to 'spice' this one up a bit. E Pluribus Anthony 20:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
So if people stopped adding irrelevant information to articles and revert warring it when it's removed and wasting everyone else's time in discussions about it, we could all spend more time adding quality information to relevant articles instead?
I completely agree.
Unfortunately, everyone doesn't think like that. Some people feel that their information is sooo important, they will "judiciously continue" adding it in spite of clear consensus to the contrary. — Omegatron 21:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here. Removal of the trivia section can certainly be seen as 'enhancing' this article—the section has been criticized as unprofessional and disconnected. Writing isn't just about adding stuff; it's also about editing.
That the section remained in the article for an extended period of time doesn't grant it some sort of special dispensation or tenure. Looking at the article history, between the time the 'Data' passage was added and when it was removed the article received next to no attention beyond the addition of interlanguage links and reversion of simple vandalism. The fact that new editors can take time to stumble across an article means that low-profile, uncontroversial articles will evolve very slowly.
That Data (Star Trek) is a fond and familiar character for Wikipedians of a certain generation and scifi bent does not make him an exceedingly important fellow for a general-purpose encyclopedia article. The information is in Data's article where it belongs. A throwaway line created by some scriptwriter of a scifi TV series a decade or two ago doesn't really convey something useful about the concept of a 'bit'; it was just used as another chunk of technobabble filler. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm arguing that just because something is trivial (and this in accordance with cited policy, as being interesting and informative), does not obviate its inclusion here. I cite it as being potentially important to novice users who may not know a bit from a bite, or even a byte, and the examples put the definitions into context. I realise that its lengthy gestation on the page does not afford it special consideration but I think a true editor, given this forum, would find some way to incorporate it, morph it, or have it evolve within the article (as I also tried to do with an even more valid reference with the human brain), not to remove both outright; that seems questionable.
(A segue: O, what's good for the good isn't good for the gander, so yes: it's relevant and sooo important given the desire to remove it; as well, I indicated I may include it if a clear consensus is not forthcoming, given opinions here. Next ...)
While a beloved character, Data is unimportant per se; what is important, though, are the implications that this information regarding capacity has on one's understanding of bit, information, and AI to John Q. It's presence allows a user to put the concept into context, and its removal does not at all enhance understanding given the spartan nature of the article. I will field a public comment as suggested and be guided by the results of that. Thanks 10, for your continued, dispassionate counsel. Ta! E Pluribus Anthony 22:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm tempted to join in. But no I'll resist...I have other things to do!--Light current 22:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
He he; likewise ... bring light unto the world! :) E Pluribus Anthony 22:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree; the trivia should not be included. But it seems like things have been resolved. Anyway, I added links to computer storage and transmission, to which these trivia are more relevant. --Mgreenbe 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on trivial bits

Hello! A Request for Comment has been submitted regarding the following:

Whether the following two items/section should be added to the article – whether they are irrelevant or necessary to provide conceptual context for (esp. novice) visitors.

Examples

  • The information storage capacity of the human brain is somewhat subjective. In Carl Sagan's popular TV series and book Cosmos, the brain is indicated to contain some 1011 neurons and each neuron has perhaps a thousand interconnecting dendrites. If a bit of information in the brain corresponds to one dendritic connection, Sagan posits the human brain may contain 100 terabits (1014 bits), or 11 terabytes, of information.

There has already been discussion in the #Trivial bits section above. Subsequent discussion should occur below, or elsewhere in this section if needed. Thanks! 11:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Generally I think trivia should be excluded from scientific and technology articles, unless it can add some useful knowledge. Then I suppose it ceases to be trivia. My opinion is that the stuff about the human brain could be included, but that about a ficticious android should be excluded. --Light current 13:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I generally concur for reasons indicated by Light current. Further to this, it may be prudent to include a superlative for contemporary computers and, if possible, the number of bits in the universe, etc. (since it may be a 'top-level' all-encompassing concept). As well, since the fictional reference is (albeit based on a little known 'throwaway' phrase) regarding a unique character in a popular TV series, it is nonetheless verifiable and provides a useful perspective about information pertaining to artificial intelligence (AI); thus, I believe it too should be included for comparison. E Pluribus Anthony 13:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't an article about storage capacity. — Omegatron 15:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No: it's an article about quanta of information, requiring examples to illustrate the concept. E Pluribus Anthony 15:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You have asked for comments from third parties, so I dont think its useful to continue your argument here until you got some, is it? --Light current 15:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
        • If they are germane to the topic, a response by anyone to comments made by anyone is perfectly justified; it would be an issue (and feel free to remove above comments) if they are inappropriate. That's it for me. :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As noted, I don't think the Data mention has a place here. The ostensible storage capacity of the human brain doesn't either, in part because the article isn't about storage capacity (as noted) and in part because any figure you could put there would be pretty much as fictional as the ST one, as in fact is the whole notion. The brain can't be particularly usefully described that way, at least not at this point in the history of psychology, unless it's in the same way that a toaster or a rock can be (ie. by viewing the world through the information theory lens, which is in fact something that could usefully be fleshed out a bit elsewhere in this article). I'd add that I'm dismayed that this particularly silly and obvious edit war has gone this far. Anthony, when you find this many people disagreeing with you on so many grounds (and there are several reasons the original note didn't fit the article which have nothing to do with its triviality), it's usually because you're mistaken, not because you're a lone visionary. I speak from experience. ;) - toh 08:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • We agree to disagree. Moreover, the last time I checked, the examples have not been reverted recently, so the edit 'war' is actually a detente pending this RfC. Lastly: while I will gladly admit potential error (as others should), viewing topics through a solitary lens can (to extend your visual metaphors) be construed as being myopic: another user (somewhat removed from prior discussion) has at least found value in the brain example, so the discussion isn't necessarily a fruitless one. I can deal with that ... and have very thick glasses to prove it. :) Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 10:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi all, I am just dropping in from the RfC page, so I am not sure I understand the nature of the dispute, but I do have a comment about one of the two examples suggested above. I suggest that you avoid mentioning the information storage capacity of the human brain, since this raises all kinds of presumably extraneous issues, such as
  • precisely how mammalian brains store/process information remains mysterious,
  • there are various possible definitions of information, and Shannon's may not always be the most appropriate one, particularly in biology. (For instance, biologists who ought to know better often refer without comment to "the information content of an E. Coli", apparently assuming this means something defined entirely in terms of the genome, without considering that the genome of an E. Coli cannot a bacteria make without some infrastructure such as cell membranes, raw materials, and the like, which suggests that something essential might be missing from any definition which only attempts to take account of the genome itself.)
You can probably find another example which makes your point without raising thorny issues like these.---CH (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback; I think your concern is partially covered off with upfront notation/qualification of the factoid being "subjective" (perhaps the wording can be massaged). Further to that, the examples provided are ones that a general user can readily understand and can be verified; however, I'd invite, be willing, and able to incorporate other examples (popularly cited) and or discussions regarding notions that quantify information/bits in toto of any biological or other system (e.g., the universe?). It is partially for these reasons that such examples are valid and should be included. Besides: what rose (and bits thereof) doesn't have thorns? :) That's my two ... bits worth. E Pluribus Anthony 03:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re the RfC: Anthony, this article is not actually about "quanta of information". That article is the data article (see also Wiktionary:data) (yes, I appreciate the irony :d). How much data the human brain can hold can be estimated in terms of bits, but that should be on the memory or human brain articles. Consider:

"...The base [binary] is partly a matter of convention, like using centimetres instead of inches, partly a matter of convenience, since it is useful when dealing with digital devices that use binary codes to represent data." - 2.1 The mathematical theory of communication, Semantic Conceptions of Information (You should read the paragraphs that come before the quote for context)

Also check out What is Mathematics? which I have a feeling you will probably find very interesting.

As for any discussion about whether the universe is basically a big (digital) computer, that should go on Digitalism (or Digital philosophy, as both articles are basically stubs and maybe they should be merged). You might also want to take a look at information science, information theory, mathematical physics, biological neural networks, cognitivism (psychology), and quantum mind just to get an idea of "what's out there". These are pretty specific articles, so you should try to get a fuller perspective by browsing the categories they are in too.--Ben 12:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the helpful information, far more so than the comments (methink) of prior detractors. While I believe that this should still be noted (but not necessarily expanded per se) in the current article, with detail in articles you cite et al., the majority (but not totality) of commenting users believe this information would be more appropriately placed elsewhere. I think it prudent to allow more commentary, and time, from others before unequivocally doing so. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 15:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

A bit is a binary digit and I judge it to be essentially a mathematical concept for representing place values of a binary number - in the same way as decimal digits are a concept for representing the place values of a decimal number. So I do not think it is a storage concept, and agree with Ben's well put suggestion's on suitable articles for information about memory. Fuzzyslob 07:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree that the trivia are irrelevant; added a link to computer storage and transmission, the former of which may be an appropriate place. --Mgreenbe 21:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC conclusion

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)

[edit] 64-bit console

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)
Things like 16-bit have articles, by the way. — Omegatron 00:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] kilo

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)

The ambiguity has been solved in 1998 by the IEEE: see KiB. 151.46.147.128 13:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the word "Bit"

Isn't it more likely that the term comes from "Pieces of Eight"? Each "piece" was called a bit. A quarter was two bits. It seems much more likely to me that this is the source of the computer term than the rather strained (IMO) abbreviation (or "portmandeau word") from Binary digIT. Dduggan47 13:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that you don't believe Claude Shannon, a very early user of the term, that he got it from John Tukey? Or is it that you think Tukey, a statistician who is credited with creating a fair number of terms, didn't make it up? Or that Tukey was just humming "Shave and a haircut, two bits" and decided to invent a short name for a binary digit and thought "I know, I'll call it a 'shave' – No, maybe 'bit' would be better"? You find hard to believe that BIT could be a contraction of BInary digiT? IMHO, that's a lot more plausible than pieces of eight, awwk, pieces of eight. -R. S. Shaw
It isn't a matter of not believing in the sense of thinking the guy lied. I remember an occasion on which I made a comment to a friend that was very funny and, I thought, very original. I later found that my comment was not original at all and was patterned on something I'd undoubtedly read before but had forgotten about, at lease consciously. In this case, bits are an eighth part of a Spanish coin. The coin, being gold, could be cut with a knife. You could cut it in half, you could cut the half in half and get a quarter, and you could cut the quarter in half and get what they called a bit. AIUI a bit was small enough that it could not easily be cut in half again. So, we've got something called a bit which is an eighth of a whole unit and which cannot be further subdivided. The word came into common usage as a term for an eighth of a dollar. Then, at a later date, we have a fellow who is said to have invented the word from BInary digiT and given it the meaning of an indivisible one eighth part of a whole unit. I guess I'd put the question back to you as to what's the more plausible origin of the word. I understand your argument, I just don't find that story likely. It seems clear to me that the word "bit" meaning an indivisible one eighth of something long predates Tukey and computers. Dduggan47 11:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You seem fundamentally confused about the meaning of 'bit' as it relates to the binary number system (the subject of the article). It has nothing to do with being "an eighth of a whole unit". One might as well claim a bit is a quarter of a whole unit or a thirteenth of a whole unit. A bit is not a fraction of any particular unit more than it is of any other unit. A bit is a binary digit, that is, a item of information that can take on exactly one of two values. This meaning of 'bit' is tightly coupled to the value 2, but has no standout relationship to the value 8 (certainly no more than 4, or 16, 32, 64, ...).
Also, Tukey did not give 'bit' the "meaning of an indivisible part of a whole unit". 'Bit' doesn't mean that any more than 'decimal digit' means "indivisible part of a whole unit". The meaning Tukey assigned to the existing word 'bit' was, please note, "binary digit".
The word 'bit' had many meanings before it was first used to mean 'binary digit'. Yes, it was was used in the 1600's and later to mean a fraction of a [Spanish] dollar, variously an eighth, tenth, or sixteenth (Oxford English Dictionary). But the word was used centuries before that to mean things like 'morsel' or 'small piece', and means many other things (OED). It's clearly a nice coincidence that the contraction 'bit' has overtones of "small thing", but that's less important than it's being a single syllable and being mnemonically related to "binary digit". -R. S. Shaw 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.
You are correct that despite the first sentence of the article, I persisted in thinking of the word in a computer sense rather than in a mathematical one. I've never encountered bit as a synonym for binary digit before. More often in my experience it's more like The Amercan Heritage Dictionary's "A fundamental unit of information having just two possible values, as either of the binary digits 0 or 1.". It's in the sense of being "a fundamental unit of information" that it's indivisible. So ... yes, as you point out, I was "fundamentally" confused about the usage here. (I don't have the Oxford Dictionary but the usage of bit as any specific fraction other than 1/8 is a new one on me too ... and I've looked. I'm not doubting you, I've just never seen it before.)
You've answered my original question and brought me most of the way to your view (which is the accepted etymology). I'll let it drop with just tone more word. I think a site called the Online Etymological Dictionary may have the best take on it (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bit). The non-mathemtatical definition ("small piece", money, etc.) is given and then definition 2 says it's a contraction of "binary digit" coined by Tukey "probably chosen for its identity with [the first definition]". In other words, Tukey did coin the term by contracting "bnary digit", but he also probably knew the history of the word he was coining. 70.20.24.129 21:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, etymonline's listing for "byte" is wrong, so I wouldn't trust them too far. They say "1964, Amer.Eng., see bit" but it was coined in July 1956 by Dr. Werner Buchholz. And the "pieces of eight" is purely speculation, and wrong. Bits have not always been 1/8 of a byte. The original meaning of "byte" was any small discrete unit made of a number of bits. Some systems had 6-bit bytes, for instance. Also, considering the word "bit" was coined in 1948 and "byte" was coined in 1956, byte is clearly an extension of "bit"; not the other way around. — Omegatron 14:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information theory bits

Bits are mentioned with reference to information theory as a measure of information entropy, but are not defined for this use in the article. There is a difference between the use of "bit" in noting a 0 or 1, and the use of "bit" to measure information. If a file with 1000 0s and 1s losslessly compressed to a file of 500 0s and 1s, then the original file, although having 1000 bits in the 0/1 sense, has at most 500 bits of information entropy, since information is not destroyed by lossless compression, and a file can have no more information theoretical bits than it can 0/1 bits. I'm not sure whether there needs to be a bit (information theory) article or another section here, but, as it is, the definition of bit here is incomplete. Calbaer 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Representation?

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)mmoskwa

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/t/Talk%7EBit_3f0b.html"