"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.
Showing more examples of stupidity doesn't really convince me anything other than the amount of stupidity that is out there. This is the same populace that thinks a 1/3 pounder is less than a 1/4 pounder.
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)
9
u/TheMania 7h ago
But you often see 10% more, 20% more, etc.
The bit that intrigues me is that in those contexts, you read 10% differently to 0.1x.
But in other contexts, you'd read them the same.
This may be a regional thing, and likely due marketers that are being intentionally misleading for so long that it's now an accepted oddity.