3 ms·
Yes, but they said seven-millionths of a second, not seven millionths of a second. Technically they're right that that's what it means, but I'd expect an editor
by thfuran 1y ago
Yes, but they said seven-millionths of a second, not seven millionths of a second. Technically they're right that that's what it means, but I'd expect an editor to recommend against that phrasing in favor of the one you used to avoid confusion.
- thaumasiotes 1y agoWell, it's true that the article says "seven-millionths". I would guess it's a lot more likely that this is an editing failure, introducing a hyphen where no hyphen should be, than that they meant to divide a second into seven million equal parts. For one thing, as SECProto alludes to, English would normally require you to say "less than a seven-millionth of a second" if that was what you meant. There's no such thing as saying "less than weeks". You have to specify less than how many weeks. less than (seven) (millionths of a second) ordinary grammar, ordinary unit choice less than (seven millionths of a second) improper grammar, bizarre unit choice.
- thfuran 1y agoI agree based on the whole sentence in the article that that was probably an editing error.