5 ms·

Isn't it just errors_count/7? (errors_count * 1/7) For example, if you got 70 errors before you now get only 10 errors.

• musiciangames 3y ago
  7 times 70 =490. 490 fewer than 70 is -420. But words mean what you want them to mean, so 7 times fewer to mean 1/7th is becoming commonplace. (edited because formatting swallowed asterisk for times)
  • zigzag312 3y ago
    Is there any case where your interpretation makes sense? Would you ever say 0.86 times fewer instead of 0.86 of the size? If new is 1/7 the size of the old, then 7 * new = old. It takes 7 times of new_count to get the value of old_count. 1/7th of the old_count. 7x fewer seems like a shorthand, but I'm not a native English speaker. x times != x times fewer 7 times => multiply 7 times fewer => multiply by fraction
    • musiciangames 3y ago
      I would never say times fewer, because it is ambiguous.
      • zigzag312 3y ago
        When value is above 1, it's not really ambiguous anymore as only one interpretation makes sense. But I understand that it could still be incorrect, if it's not well defined term in English.
        • musiciangames 3y ago
          You choose an interesting case at 1. What does 1 times less errors mean? To me it means no errors.
          • zigzag312 3y ago
            It's ambiguous as it's not above or below 1 :)
  • djbusby 3y ago
    Gotta put a back-whack in like \* for *