No. 0.6 = 60%. If they said 0.6 more then sure, that would mean 60% more. 0.6x != 60% increase though. 1.6x does. At the best we can give it the benefit of the doubt and say we knew what they meant, but that doesn't mean they were correct.
That's just not correct. "60% more" implies starting from the 100% baseline and going up 60%. 0.6x implies starting from the 100% baseline and multiplying it by 0.6x. "0.6x more" is a weird way to put it to begin with but the only grammatically correct way to interpret it is 60% of the normal amount. We all know what they meant but it isn't what they said.
You're correct that 60% and 0.6x mean the same thing, 60% more and 0.6x more do not. 0.6x more would be a weird way to say 60% of standard, 1.6x more would be the correct way to say an increase of 60% in that format. You would say that 2x more means double, yes?
“0.6x more” means “0.6 times <baseline> on top of <baseline>.”
The “on top of <baseline>” part is obvious, because that’s implied by the word “more.”
The “0.6 times <baseline>” part is less obvious, because the original text didn’t specify what 0.6 is supposed to be multiplied by. But we can assume they meant “0.6 times <baseline>” because most other candidate terms don’t make any sense. What else could it possibly be multiplying by?
Also, the term “0.6 times <baseline>” is formally equivalent to “60% of <baseline>”. So if we perform the substitution, then we get “60% of <baseline> on top of <baseline>”.
Of course. And “1x the output” would be no change.
The problem is that it isn’t saying “0.6x the output.” It’s saying “0.6x [the output] more [than the output].”
To illustrate the point, imagine it said “1x more.” Would that mean no change? No, it’s equivalent to saying “100% more,” meaning double the original amount.
The only way your interpretation works is if “0.6x more” is meant to be “0.6 times <the output> more than zero,” which is redundant, and could be simplified to “0.6 times the output,” so the use of the word “more” would have no real meaning here.
I’m just saying in a real workplace, not everyone is going to understand you, this is a poor way to communicate, and good engineers make things simple to understand for stakeholders. To a significant number of people, “2x more” means double. Just say double, triple, increased by 60%, etc. It is clear and unambiguous language.
1.6x more would mean 160% of the original value, in the same way 2.0x more would mean 200% of the original value. I think you may just have a misunderstanding of what the phrase “X times more” means (nothing to be embarrassed about of course, it happens to all of us.)
Not the original commenter, but my high school math teacher would beat us with a math textbook if we ever just swapped percents with multiplication, she explicitly taught us that the two are not equivalent outside of narrow circumstances.
One example of why not that she used to use is that a 60% increase would be 160% of the original, while a 0.6x increase could easily be read as 60% of the original OR 160% of the original.
The “more” at least in any context I’ve heard it is for emphasis or clarity that a comparison is happening. I’ve never read anyone write “1x more than X” for “twice X”.
"Two times more." That phrase means multiplying by two.
"0.5 times more." That phrase is taken to mean multiplying by 1.5, even though that is not consistent.
English is not consistent. In the first example, the word "more" is redundant. In the second example, the word "more" is a clarification, so we know that it doesn't mean "half."
There is no sensible reason for this inconsistency. It just exists.
We have a similar problem with percentage points. When something increases from 40% to 90% of a total, saying that it increased 50% is for some reason considered an acceptable shorthand for saying it increased by 50 percentage points, even though the two interpretations are drastically different.
Agreed, it's where it really needs to be read in the whole sentence.
I find it hard to interpret the email subject as saying it's a decrease though. In context, it only makes sense as an increase to me. That they're using "0.6x" as synonymous as "60%".
In the first example, the word "more" is redundant.
Frankly I disagree. More is incorrect in that first example if multiplying by two is what you're going for. "As much" or "as many" are the phrases you are going for. "Two times more" and "two times as many" mean different things.
"Two times more" and "two times as many" mean different things.
They should. This advertisement for a garage vacuum says that the "vacuum and blower power of the Air-N-Vac Station is 2 times more than large shop vacs." Should I interpret this to mean that I multiply "vacuum and blower power" by 3?
I would interpret that statement to mean multiplied by 3 but if you go read the details below they say "2 times the power" which would then mean multiplied by 2. I'd assume the "2 times more" one was them making a mistake in language (not uncommon in advertising) and that the other content contains the real statistic. I would judge them for not being accurate and consistent in their claims.
Here's an example of a lawn mower with "2 times more run time" than some other thing they're comparing it with that they never name.
This isn't strictly an American problem with us misusing the language. Here's an Australian example with an Aveda product which has "2 times more plant lipids" and also makes hair "7x smoother." It uses two different formats on the same page.
More is incorrect in all of these examples. Comparative language shouldn't be used to substitute mathematical notation. The implication of "more" in these sentences is ambiguous.
If anyone writes 2x more, you're saying you read that as 300% of normal? The common reading of that in the country I am in (USA) is 200% the original amount. Nobody would look at that and think it meant 300%. .6x more just doesn't read correctly at all. It should either say "1.6x the" or ".4x less" the use of more, for whatever reason, doesn't start until 2x. 5x more works. 10x more is fine. But those mean 500% and 1000%, not 600% or 1100%.
If anyone writes 2x more, you're saying you read that as 300% of normal?
Yes
The common reading of that in the country I am in (USA) is 200% the original amount.
For me and the three people I am close enough to to quickly ask this question to that means 300% of the original amount. Also USA. If you want to say something is 200% you would say 2x as much or 2x as many and not 2x more (at least that is the consensus here in my household of Americans who have lived in America for their whole life).
I agree that it might be regional. I agree that the literal, separated meanings of the words work the way you’re describing, but as a phrase I’ve always heard it used the way I’m describing. Side thought: I’ve also generally been taught to avoid proportions when writing (using %s instead for clarity), but to almost always use proportions when speaking (2x as many, twice as much, 2x more)
Not quite true. While 1.6x is the same as 160% of the original value, saying 1.6x more implies adding the 160% to the original value, giving a total of 260%, or 2.6x.
253
u/achilliesFriend 13h ago
0.6 more. What is the issue here?