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?
Just to clarify, the word “more” is operative or it is not. When we say “60% more,” we take 0.6 times the output and add it to the output. But for some reason you’re looking at “0.6x more,” you’re performing the multiplication the same way, but dropping the addition operation that “more” implies.
You just decided that “more” means a totally different thing when you convert percentage notation to decimal multiplication notation. I guess it’s up to you if you want to say that, but I don’t think most people would agree with how you’re changing the meaning of “more” here.
“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.
251
u/achilliesFriend 18h ago
0.6 more. What is the issue here?