4 ms·
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, th
by 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 agoI would never say times fewer, because it is ambiguous.
- zigzag312 3y agoWhen 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 agoYou choose an interesting case at 1. What does 1 times less errors mean? To me it means no errors.
- zigzag312 3y agoIt's ambiguous as it's not above or below 1 :)