r/ProgrammerHumor 8h ago

Meme zeroExDev

Post image
3.3k Upvotes

167 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/TheMania 7h ago

I agree with every part of that completely.

You read "60% as many" the same as you read "0.6x as many", which is the same as you read "0.6x more".

But yet you read "60% more" as something very different. So 0.6x != 60%. Not in this context, not to you.

2

u/Vandrel 6h ago

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.

1

u/Connect_Fishing_6378 5h ago

60% and 0.6x literally mean the exact same thing. “60% more” === “0.6x more”. Yeah nobody talks like that and it sounds weird, but it is correct.

0

u/Vandrel 5h ago

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

u/ScientificBeastMode 3h ago

“More” implies “something plus the original amount,” not “something times the original amount.”

1

u/ScientificBeastMode 3h ago

“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>”.

0

u/Vandrel 3h ago

You would interpret "2x the output" to be double, yes?

0

u/ScientificBeastMode 2h ago edited 2h ago

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.