4 ms·

They are decreasing by a factor of 200, which means 1/200 of the starting amount. English is not my native language so I was a bit confused by "200 times less"

They are decreasing by a factor of 200, which means 1/200 of the starting amount. English is not my native language so I was a bit confused by "200 times less", which I (wrongly) imagined to mean starting amount (x) minus 200x, getting to -199x, which didn't make sense. Math in speech is a tricky thing.

entropicgravity 4y ago
The trick is in the word "times". In english every kid learns the "times table" ie "3 times 5 is 15; 6 times 7 is 42" so in this case "200 times less" means x/200. Live and learn, especially in a second language :)
GoldenRacer 4y ago
I am a native English speaker and this annoys me as well. 200 times less sounds more impressive than 99.5% less even if it's kind of ambiguous. Same with saying it only needs 1/200th the amount. They want big numbers in the headline and people will figure out what they meant.
- hinkley 4y ago
  It’s even more ambiguous when people say “200% faster”. What does 50% faster mean in a world where people can say 200% faster with impunity?
  - aordano 4y ago
    200% faster means 3x the nominal speed: You're adding speed ("going faster"). You're adding a 200% of speed, which is twice the nominal speed (the 100%). Given the nominal speed is 1x and you're adding 2x, you end with triple the magnitude of the original nominal speed.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hinkley 4y ago
      You've dodged the question mark. What does 50% faster mean? What does 67% faster mean? What does 75% faster mean? I'm using the exact same terminology, so splitting hairs on phrasing isn't going to work for me.
      - fragmede 4y ago
        50% faster means original speed plus 50%, or 1.5x
      - mattkrause 4y ago
        Something crawls along at 1 m/s. After some clever engineering, it now runs 50% faster. Its speed is now 100% (baseline) + 50% (improvement) = 150% of 1 m/s (original speed) = 1.5 * 1 m/s = 1.5 m/s The budget option runs 20% slower than the original model. Its speed is 100% (baseline) - 20% (derating) = 80% * 1 m/s (original speed) = 0.8 m/s.
      - aordano 4y ago
        As sibling comments said, 50% faster means adding 50% of the nominal speed, so it's 1.5x the original magnitude.
    - stormbrew 4y ago
      It would be nice if this were the universal meaning of this phrasing but people do use it to mean both "twice as fast" (2x) and "faster by double the original speed" (3x). People will rail about them using it wrong but it's pretty useless when you have to basically guess whether people subscribe to your definition of "right" before you can understand something.
- jacobolus 4y ago
  The only reason to have “per cent” (%) as a concept is because decimal fractions weren’t invented yet when per cent was first used; until the past few centuries arithmetic was almost exclusively done in terms of integers or ratios (or various mixed units depending on the material being measured). Using 1/100 as a generic unit was a work-around to make numbers less than one easier to compare and recognize by turning them into 2-digit whole numbers instead of needing to do a careful computation to judge between say 5/13 vs. 3/8. There’s not really any particular advantage to saying 0.005 of the amount (or 1 – 0.995 of the amount) vs. 200 times less. Personally I find it significantly less clear (though not really any more or less “impressive”), because doing mental decimal arithmetic takes some extra effort and leaves more room for confusion. That is, it is easier to reason about multiplying or dividing some quantity by 200 vs. multiplying or dividing by (1 – 0.995). But the two numbers are reciprocals; this is grade-school rational arithmetic, not some kind of trick.
FredPret 4y ago
Crazy thought: mathematical symbols like +, =, and even variables like x, y, etc are recent-ish innovations. Before that equations were written out in words!
- HPsquared 4y ago
  That's interesting, are there any famous examples?
  - drivers99 4y ago
    https://personal.math.ubc.ca/~cass/Euclid/dee/dee24.html https://personal.math.ubc.ca/~cass/Euclid/dee/dee24.html From an early/first English translation of Euclid.[1] [1] https://personal.math.ubc.ca/~cass/Euclid/dee/ https://personal.math.ubc.ca/~cass/Euclid/dee/
  - cesaref 4y ago
    I'd guess Netwons Principia would be a good example, given it basically became the founding work of a mathematical approach to physics, gravity, newton's laws of motion etc. The book is written in Latin and contains diagrams and text to describe each lemma and law. Geometric proof seems to feature heavily! From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#/media/File:Principia_Page_1726.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Pri...
  - jlokier 4y ago
    Fermat's Last Theorem: Latin: Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos & generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet. Translation: It is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two fourth powers, or in general, any power higher than the second, into two like powers. I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem Fermat's Little Theorem (much more useful in practice): French:Tout nombre premier mesure infailliblement une des puissances − 1 de quelque progression que ce soit, et l'exposant de la dite puissance est sous-multiple du nombre premier donné − 1; et, après qu'on a trouvé la première puissance qui satisfait à la question, toutes celles dont les exposants sont multiples de l'exposant de la première satisfont tout de même à la question. Translation: Every prime number [p] divides necessarily one of the powers minus one of any [geometric] progression [x, x², x³, ... ] [that is, there exists a such that p divides xª – 1], and the exponent of this power [a] divides the given prime minus one [divides p – 1]. After one has found the first power [a] that satisfies the question, all those whose exponents are multiples of the exponent of the first one satisfy similarly the question [that is, all multiples of the first a have the same property]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_little_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_little_theorem
euroderf 4y ago
This is a horrible language hack perpetrated and perpetuated by people who think a form like "a/one two-hundredth" is some kind of fancy-pants pointy-haired intellectual nonsense that will lose their target audience of the mathematically and grammatically illiterate. Oh well.
Angostura 4y ago
I thought it might have just meant they needed one third of the amount. Thanks for doing the maths
resist_futility 4y ago
200 * x(less) = y(previous)
arantius 4y ago
I am a native English speaker, but I also despise this phrase. Exactly because it's so awkward that it's hard to truly know what the speaker means. This pattern is unfortunately common. In my experience when used, they mean "reduced by a factor of 200" but they say "200 times less" as...shorthand?

entropicgravity 4y ago

The trick is in the word "times". In english every kid learns the "times table" ie "3 times 5 is 15; 6 times 7 is 42" so in this case "200 times less" means x/200. Live and learn, especially in a second language :)

GoldenRacer 4y ago

I am a native English speaker and this annoys me as well. 200 times less sounds more impressive than 99.5% less even if it's kind of ambiguous. Same with saying it only needs 1/200th the amount. They want big numbers in the headline and people will figure out what they meant.

hinkley 4y ago
It’s even more ambiguous when people say “200% faster”. What does 50% faster mean in a world where people can say 200% faster with impunity?
- aordano 4y ago
  200% faster means 3x the nominal speed: You're adding speed ("going faster"). You're adding a 200% of speed, which is twice the nominal speed (the 100%). Given the nominal speed is 1x and you're adding 2x, you end with triple the magnitude of the original nominal speed.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hinkley 4y ago
    You've dodged the question mark. What does 50% faster mean? What does 67% faster mean? What does 75% faster mean? I'm using the exact same terminology, so splitting hairs on phrasing isn't going to work for me.
    - fragmede 4y ago
      50% faster means original speed plus 50%, or 1.5x
    - mattkrause 4y ago
      Something crawls along at 1 m/s. After some clever engineering, it now runs 50% faster. Its speed is now 100% (baseline) + 50% (improvement) = 150% of 1 m/s (original speed) = 1.5 * 1 m/s = 1.5 m/s The budget option runs 20% slower than the original model. Its speed is 100% (baseline) - 20% (derating) = 80% * 1 m/s (original speed) = 0.8 m/s.
    - aordano 4y ago
      As sibling comments said, 50% faster means adding 50% of the nominal speed, so it's 1.5x the original magnitude.
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    It would be nice if this were the universal meaning of this phrasing but people do use it to mean both "twice as fast" (2x) and "faster by double the original speed" (3x). People will rail about them using it wrong but it's pretty useless when you have to basically guess whether people subscribe to your definition of "right" before you can understand something.
jacobolus 4y ago
The only reason to have “per cent” (%) as a concept is because decimal fractions weren’t invented yet when per cent was first used; until the past few centuries arithmetic was almost exclusively done in terms of integers or ratios (or various mixed units depending on the material being measured). Using 1/100 as a generic unit was a work-around to make numbers less than one easier to compare and recognize by turning them into 2-digit whole numbers instead of needing to do a careful computation to judge between say 5/13 vs. 3/8. There’s not really any particular advantage to saying 0.005 of the amount (or 1 – 0.995 of the amount) vs. 200 times less. Personally I find it significantly less clear (though not really any more or less “impressive”), because doing mental decimal arithmetic takes some extra effort and leaves more room for confusion. That is, it is easier to reason about multiplying or dividing some quantity by 200 vs. multiplying or dividing by (1 – 0.995). But the two numbers are reciprocals; this is grade-school rational arithmetic, not some kind of trick.

FredPret 4y ago

Crazy thought: mathematical symbols like +, =, and even variables like x, y, etc are recent-ish innovations. Before that equations were written out in words!

HPsquared 4y ago
That's interesting, are there any famous examples?
- drivers99 4y ago
  https://personal.math.ubc.ca/~cass/Euclid/dee/dee24.html https://personal.math.ubc.ca/~cass/Euclid/dee/dee24.html From an early/first English translation of Euclid.[1] [1] https://personal.math.ubc.ca/~cass/Euclid/dee/ https://personal.math.ubc.ca/~cass/Euclid/dee/
- cesaref 4y ago
  I'd guess Netwons Principia would be a good example, given it basically became the founding work of a mathematical approach to physics, gravity, newton's laws of motion etc. The book is written in Latin and contains diagrams and text to describe each lemma and law. Geometric proof seems to feature heavily! From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#/media/File:Principia_Page_1726.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Pri...
- jlokier 4y ago
  Fermat's Last Theorem: Latin: Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos & generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet. Translation: It is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two fourth powers, or in general, any power higher than the second, into two like powers. I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem Fermat's Little Theorem (much more useful in practice): French:Tout nombre premier mesure infailliblement une des puissances − 1 de quelque progression que ce soit, et l'exposant de la dite puissance est sous-multiple du nombre premier donné − 1; et, après qu'on a trouvé la première puissance qui satisfait à la question, toutes celles dont les exposants sont multiples de l'exposant de la première satisfont tout de même à la question. Translation: Every prime number [p] divides necessarily one of the powers minus one of any [geometric] progression [x, x², x³, ... ] [that is, there exists a such that p divides xª – 1], and the exponent of this power [a] divides the given prime minus one [divides p – 1]. After one has found the first power [a] that satisfies the question, all those whose exponents are multiples of the exponent of the first one satisfy similarly the question [that is, all multiples of the first a have the same property]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_little_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_little_theorem

euroderf 4y ago

This is a horrible language hack perpetrated and perpetuated by people who think a form like "a/one two-hundredth" is some kind of fancy-pants pointy-haired intellectual nonsense that will lose their target audience of the mathematically and grammatically illiterate. Oh well.

Angostura 4y ago

I thought it might have just meant they needed one third of the amount. Thanks for doing the maths

resist_futility 4y ago

200 * x(less) = y(previous)

arantius 4y ago

I am a native English speaker, but I also despise this phrase. Exactly because it's so awkward that it's hard to truly know what the speaker means. This pattern is unfortunately common. In my experience when used, they mean "reduced by a factor of 200" but they say "200 times less" as...shorthand?