Talk:Giga-

Move

This should be moved to giga- and get a {{lowercase}} tag. See Talk:Micro for rationale. — Omegatron 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard disk size

Something described as 40GB hard disk does not contain 40 x 2^30 bytes, but 40 billion bytes. The 'GB' in this case is more for marketing or indicative purposes. If my understanding is correct, the hard disk capacity example in the "Common usage" section is inaccurate.

Gigabyte

Gigabyte — hard disk capacity, e.g. 120 GB; DVD capacity, e.g. 5 GB = 5 × 1 073 741 824 bytes

Would it in this context not be better to use the SI-Gigabyte and say ; ''Gigabyte — hard disk capacity, e.g. 120 GB; DVD capacity, e.g. 5 GB = 5 × 1 000 000 000 bytes ? --Walter 08:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

SI prefixes for bits and bytes

In the introduction it reads: "When referring to computing information units [...] giga- can sometimes mean 1,073,741,824 (230), (Though such use is incorrect)", with "incorrect" linking to a pdf file. This pdf file broadly discusses the usage of the SI, so the relevant information (SI prefixes for bits and bytes) is found at the end under reference 5 in Appendix D (page 86 of the pdf, page 74 intended) or the note under section 4.3 (page 19 of the pdf, page 7 intended). Should we maybe make clear to the readers that we are referring to (one of) those sections specifically instead of quoting the entire article? --Spencer.vdm (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference to the NIST pdf and gave the relevant section. I also replaced "incorrect" with "discouraged by some standards bodies". I added a reference to a BIPM (the organization that maintains the SI definitions) paper. I also cleaned up the structure. Text inside parentheses shouldn't begin with a capital letter, and the text after the closing parenthesis seemed to continue the thought started inside the parentheses not the beginning of the sentence. I also removed "Any ambiguity is best resolved from context." as that doesn't really add anything and can be applied to any situation where there is ambiguity (also, if one could resolve the meaning from context, then it wouldn't be ambiguous). Also the discussion about who standardized what, where the binary meaning is used, who discourages it, and why is all discussed in the binary prefix article. Onlynone (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Latvian musical instrument

The is also a Latvian musical instrument called the giga.

Pronunciation

how about adding the alphabet for the way for the Pronunciation.

the text doesn't cover at all if the 'i' is as in Idea or as in Is --Nkour 11:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The i is pronounced as in "is".

Disputed pronunciation

The text refering to "jigawatt" is apparently incorrect since the preferred pronunciation in OED, www.oed.com, Webster, www.m-w.com, and American Heritage is given as "giga" aka "jiga" from "giant".

See the disputed terms page for Gigabyte.

"one point twenty one jigawatts..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.81.234 (talk) 16:29, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Self is an engineer, and was writing his usual "Technically Speaking" column for the prominent magazine IEEE Spectrum, which is sent to all members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. People like Self create the English language; dictionary editors merely try to document what happened. --Gerry Ashton 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like dictionaries, only documents what has happened. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 03:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

More on pronunciation

An IP changed the section around a lot, making uncited claims that dictionaries had been giving the wrong pronunciation for a long time. Someone else also added an unecessary quip about computer experts showing engineers the right way of pronouncing it.

I picked a neutral version because, really, we need some reliable citations here. I've checked a half dozen dictionaries, and the "jigga" is listed as primary for all of them. Now, they may all be wrong, as anon claims - but that kind of claim is something we certainly need to document. If he's wrong, we need a citation fo rthat. Any which way, we need some reputable citations before tossing any "this is real pronunciation" statements back into the article. --Xanzzibar 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

as far as i know, "giga-" in physics and maths is pronounced as "jiga" while it is pronounced with a hard g as in "google" when it comes to computers.--81.215.210.116 07:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the BIPM's other official language is French, and in French there is no hesitation: it is pronounced jiga - soft g, hard g. Urhixidur 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck with the initial hard G. Lately that's all I hear. Old microwave types called out frequencies in gigacycles, with a soft initial G: Jiggacycles (per second understood) 66.189.125.41 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the USA the hard g pronunciation might be popular as a way to avoid the peril of a phonetic similarity to the racial slur Jigaboo. This peril is cited at length in the Wiki entry for Niggardly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.101.149 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate and, from what I've read, true. Those are nasty words, and I believe as less and less people remember or know what they mean, the J- pronunciation will be less taboo. In my area of R&D, the J is still used. Regardless, I thought it an interesting note that in Jay-Z's song "Jigga What Jigga Who," Jay-Z switches between "Jigga" and "Nigga" throughout the song. I'll look up my references on the slur issue. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 03:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Giant to Gigantic

I changed the example in the following sentence from "giant" to "gigantic" because "giga" is actually at the beginning of the word, further supporting it's pronunciation of "jiga".

"In English the initial g of giga is usually pronounced with a hard g (as in giggle) but is sometimes pronounced with a soft g (as in giant)." --Huper Phuff ^talk 00:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I further softened the claims of "usually" and "sometimes," as well as adding a citation to formalized acceptable pronunciations. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 03:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

IPA

Gerry,

You've reverted the addition of IPA on the grounds that

1. hardly anyone understands it and
2. the source didn't use it.

I'd say that

1. that IPA that I did use wasn't hard, was liked & was followed in brackets by that "hard g"/"soft g" stuff and
2. sources can use what they will we don't have to follow them nor do they have WP:PRON to adhere to.

I propose reinstating the IPA as is used throughout WP.

JIMp _talk·cont 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Who likes IPA? I think it is unpopular in English dictionaries for a reason. Also, my understanding of IPA is limited, but I understand that the symbols are intended to represent an exact sound. English words, on the other hand, can have subtle changes in punctuation from region to region, which one reason English dictionaries avoid IPA. Their pronunciation keys indicates the pronunciation of the word but leaves some wiggle room for regional variation. That's why I hesitate to change an author's description in terms of the pronunciation of well-known words to IPA. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the IPA. There is plenty of wiggle room ... or more correctly, a transcription can be narrow or broad. Symbols can be used to represent an exact sound ... or not. The vowel in gate, for example, can be written as /ei/ which might be the exact [ei] sound when pronounced by a BBC news anchor but [æɪ] when pronounced by an Aussie like me or [eː] when pronounced by an American. The /ei/ does cover all of this. I don't believe it's true that English dictionaries in general avoid the IPA ... here's a counter example of the top of my head ... American dictionaries may, each with their own pronunciation key to look up. Well WP's got a pronunciation key, which I'd linked to, it just happens to be based on the IPA, the international standard. Of course, it can't come down to "I like it." vs "I don't.": how can we have our cake and eat it too whilst sticking to the guidelines on phonemic transcription to which I'd linked above? JIMp _talk·cont 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that the reader can't make sense of the paragraph without becoming instantly familiar with IPA. While the two symbols /g/ and /I'll be damned if I'll bother figuring out how to type it/, a bunch of other symbols are used with no explaination. In fact I don't like making extensive use of any phonetic system in running text. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that we're using wishy-washy terms like "hard g" and "soft g" (not to mention the variation in italisation, capitalisation or the use of inverted commas; nor even the use of "soft 'j'"). Here's beauty: if the g in get is hard and the g in germ is soft, what's the g in genre? I don't like the fact that we're resorting to invented respellings to get the point across either. How's this for a compromise, though? Let's use IPA only for the consonant in question, /g/ vs /dʒ/ (it's in the editing tool box), rephrasing so as to avoid too much repetition and to avoid the need to transcribe the prefix or any word formed with it. JIMp _talk·cont 15:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a way to word it so that only the consonant in question is in IPA notation, I'll go along with that. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked the section so as to keep minimal IPA. JIMp _talk·cont 19:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Source for pronunciation

I've found the original 1981 NBS document referred to, and giga and jiga don't appear anywhere in it. Nor is there a guide on pronunciation. Can someone clarify where this NBS statement is supposed to exist? Here's the URL to the document: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=psia.ark%3A%2F13960%2Ft7rn4qq8k Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It's in there, as well as in the 1976 version. It states the pronunciation is ji' ga Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giga-. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613185719/http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/si-prefixes.html to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/si-prefixes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)