3 ms·

"Nine times" literally means multiplied by nine, but here we're dividing by nine. It's not unintelligible (because the corrupted verbiage is so commonplace) but

"Nine times" literally means multiplied by nine, but here we're dividing by nine. It's not unintelligible (because the corrupted verbiage is so commonplace) but it is needlessly awkward. Like saying "resulted in a size reduction increase of 10 megabytes."

D-Machine 17d ago
> "Nine times" literally means multiplied by nine Rather, "nine times larger" means multiplied by nine, and "nine times smaller" means divided by nine. This is basic and not particularly awkward, certainly not more so than e.g. positive/negative correlation, or many much more awkward and more common linguistic constructions, IMO. If you have to edit out words (i.e. context) to argue a phrase doesn't make sense... I am not sure what mental model you have for natural language, exactly, but it certainly isn't a very robust one.
- simondotau 16d ago
  [flagged]
dools 16d ago
Saying something is 9 times bigger is also a shorthand because “times” is a shorthand for repeated addition. You are adding a number “9 times” to make it “9 times larger”. But we don’t say the “adding” part. Likewise if I repeatedly subtract a number 9 times to make it “9 times smaller” I can omit the subtracted bit.
- simondotau 16d ago
  That interpretation doesn’t make sense. Repeated subtraction does not correspond to division in the way repeated addition corresponds to multiplication.
  - dools 16d ago
    Que? Division is the opposite of multiplication of course it does. If you divide 81 by 9 you subtract 9 from 81 until you get to 0. The number of TIMES you do that is the result “81 divided by 9”.
    - simondotau 16d ago
      This isn’t analogous to repeated addition giving multiplication. You’ve switched from applying an operation nine times to counting how many times an operation can be applied. You chose 81 because it’s the one number that makes your argument appear to work. Try the same reasoning with 80 ÷ 9.
      - dools 16d ago
        [dead]

D-Machine 17d ago

> "Nine times" literally means multiplied by nine Rather, "nine times larger" means multiplied by nine, and "nine times smaller" means divided by nine. This is basic and not particularly awkward, certainly not more so than e.g. positive/negative correlation, or many much more awkward and more common linguistic constructions, IMO. If you have to edit out words (i.e. context) to argue a phrase doesn't make sense... I am not sure what mental model you have for natural language, exactly, but it certainly isn't a very robust one.

simondotau 16d ago
[flagged]

dools 16d ago

Saying something is 9 times bigger is also a shorthand because “times” is a shorthand for repeated addition. You are adding a number “9 times” to make it “9 times larger”. But we don’t say the “adding” part. Likewise if I repeatedly subtract a number 9 times to make it “9 times smaller” I can omit the subtracted bit.

simondotau 16d ago
That interpretation doesn’t make sense. Repeated subtraction does not correspond to division in the way repeated addition corresponds to multiplication.
- dools 16d ago
  Que? Division is the opposite of multiplication of course it does. If you divide 81 by 9 you subtract 9 from 81 until you get to 0. The number of TIMES you do that is the result “81 divided by 9”.
  - simondotau 16d ago
    This isn’t analogous to repeated addition giving multiplication. You’ve switched from applying an operation nine times to counting how many times an operation can be applied. You chose 81 because it’s the one number that makes your argument appear to work. Try the same reasoning with 80 ÷ 9.
    - dools 16d ago
      [dead]