4 ms·

I agree it makes little sense in a literal mathematical take but "it's 9x smaller" or is too much of linguistic advantage compared to "the original is 9x larger

I agree it makes little sense in a literal mathematical take but "it's 9x smaller" or is too much of linguistic advantage compared to "the original is 9x larger" or "it's 1/9th as large" to expect a change with. You don't have to invoke fractions, it keeps the thing in focus as the first subject, it matches the pattern of the inverse statement, and it's just plain short... so that's what people will adapt and interpret the meaning to be. One other way to map both types of linguistic statement consistently to math is to interpret "9x" as "there is a 9 times difference between these two things" and then "smaller"/"larger" tells you which end of that separation the subject is (rather than specifying whether the multiplication builds up or down).

kevinwang 8d ago
"it's 11% as large" avoids fractions but is much more clear (IMO) than "9x smaller" which my brain doesn't understand.
- zamadatix 8d ago
  11% is also a really saying a fraction, 11 per-cent or 11/100, but there's nothing wrong with that feeling more natural to some and it is at least a nice shorthand way for the written form. "A ninth the size" is a similar alternative. All are really fine, there's always someone who has trouble with a given representation compared to another.
- Taek 8d ago
  It's an idiom, much like "you are pulling my hair". Are you actually pulling my hair? Of course not; taken literally, many English phrases make no sense. But they are common elements of the language and everyone understands them, so they aren't problematic. This is the same. Taken literally, "9x smaller" is nonsense, but everyone who hears that phrase knows exactly what mathematical operation you are referring to, thus it's a totally acceptable way to express that you mean to say 11.11% as large.
- asterix_pano 8d ago
  When I hear 9x smaller, I visualize 9 small items taken as much space as the big one, I find it quite clear.
- DoctorOetker 7d ago
  I don't see the issue at all, consider whatever as a fraction, or just add a denominator of 1: "9 times larger" => multiply the numerator of the fraction with 9 "9 times smaller" => multiply the denominator of the fraction with 9 Consider a bag of identical resistors with resistance R Add 9 of them in series: the resistance is 9 times larger. Add 9 of them in parallel: the resistance is 9 times smaller. Its the series vs parallel dictionary wars all over again... Check my other comment.
fwip 8d ago
"The original is 9x larger" This is another pet peeve that I have with the way we phrase these things: It should be 9x "as large" and 8x "larger." The way I'd usually phrase this, to avoid ambiguity, is "this new model is 11% the size (of the original)." Or, the other way, "the old model is 9x the size".

kevinwang 8d ago

"it's 11% as large" avoids fractions but is much more clear (IMO) than "9x smaller" which my brain doesn't understand.

zamadatix 8d ago
11% is also a really saying a fraction, 11 per-cent or 11/100, but there's nothing wrong with that feeling more natural to some and it is at least a nice shorthand way for the written form. "A ninth the size" is a similar alternative. All are really fine, there's always someone who has trouble with a given representation compared to another.
Taek 8d ago
It's an idiom, much like "you are pulling my hair". Are you actually pulling my hair? Of course not; taken literally, many English phrases make no sense. But they are common elements of the language and everyone understands them, so they aren't problematic. This is the same. Taken literally, "9x smaller" is nonsense, but everyone who hears that phrase knows exactly what mathematical operation you are referring to, thus it's a totally acceptable way to express that you mean to say 11.11% as large.
asterix_pano 8d ago
When I hear 9x smaller, I visualize 9 small items taken as much space as the big one, I find it quite clear.
DoctorOetker 7d ago
I don't see the issue at all, consider whatever as a fraction, or just add a denominator of 1: "9 times larger" => multiply the numerator of the fraction with 9 "9 times smaller" => multiply the denominator of the fraction with 9 Consider a bag of identical resistors with resistance R Add 9 of them in series: the resistance is 9 times larger. Add 9 of them in parallel: the resistance is 9 times smaller. Its the series vs parallel dictionary wars all over again... Check my other comment.

fwip 8d ago

"The original is 9x larger" This is another pet peeve that I have with the way we phrase these things: It should be 9x "as large" and 8x "larger." The way I'd usually phrase this, to avoid ambiguity, is "this new model is 11% the size (of the original)." Or, the other way, "the old model is 9x the size".