Talk:1024 (number)

Untitled

The radius of Saturn? What does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.64.16 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it you weren't the one who added that line in the first place.

Whoever did, if they want to re-add it, they have to explain what unit of measurement they are using and whether or not they are including the rings in the measurement. The same goes for middle C. PrimeFan 21:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is 1024 used for measuring byte increment systems (kilobyte, megabyte, etc.)? Is there something that makes this number simpler than 1000, or is there a deep meaning behind it, or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qhiiyr (talk • contribs) 03:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1024 is simpler for computers to use, because to them it is 10000000000 (binary, one bit set to on followed by ten bits set to off). 1000 is simpler to us humans. PrimeFan 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know anything about the meaning of this number? (Is it true that Aztecs used to think it's a year of the end of the Wolrd?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralfi102 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I heard it in Mel Gibson's drunken rant. Not very credible. I quickly skimmed the article on the Aztec calendar and didn't find anything to support that. PrimeFan 23:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless Fact

I've removed this entry, as I don't see its significance.

1024 equally sized parcels of land can be divided from 1 square mile, or 640 acres. This is achieved through 4^5. Each lot will represent 5/8 acres or 27,225 SF of area.

Surely any sized piece of land can be divided into 1024 sections. Also, "This is achieved through 4^5" is not good English, like what I write. Rojomoke 10:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about graphics vs. Unicode

This may be more of a general question rather than specific to this page, but why are graphics used for, eg, the greater-than-or-equal-to sign - rather than the unicode equivalent "≥"? Is it legacy reasons, and if so, is it appropriate to replace the images with text? Pgl (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning of "Special use in computers" section required!

Line 1: Any examples of this being a commonly used? Line 2: Incorrect - the maximum value is 1023 (assuming all off is 0) Line 4: 1024x768 is not that common any more (as indicated by the linked article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.3.25 (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group Theory

There is a result in group theory that 99% of all groups with order less than 2000 have order 1024. This seems like a very profound result, but unfortunately I am not sufficiently familiar with the classification of finite groups to elaborate. Perhaps it should just be mentioned and then hyperlinked to this page. Kreizhn (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreizhn: I'm putting it in. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of groups of order 1024

This page (2021) states that there are 49487367289 groups of order 1024. Should the number 49487365422 in the page be corrected? See also this Math Stack Exchange question. 129.104.240.174 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good spot. I have also corrected the occurrence of this number on List of small groups. I have kept mention of the old number since it is still in circulation (e.g. Wolfram Alpha, and presumably Mathematica, currently still give FiniteGroupCount[1024]=49487365422). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P-group updated too. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]