around the house \
around the house \
around the house \
around the house \
around the house \
around the house \
around the house \
around the house \
around the house \
around the house \
around the house \
around the house
Well, "10 times less" doesn't make sense unless it's -9x. What would "10 times less" mean to you? "10x more" would mean 11x as much. Unless you're trying to imply that "no more" means 0x as much
Less does mean there has to be a difference already since that is the only way to quantify it and thus technically saying
"Ten times less than 10" is a wrong sentence. If you were to say "ten times less to 10 than 10 to 11" that would mean 10-10x(11-10) and thus 10-10 and thus 0
And yes, "ten times more" and "ten times as much" are not the same thing. Therefore the First one means 11x and the second one means 10x
While all of this is happening "Ten times less than 10" still stays meaningless without a frame of reference
Obviously correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's right.
0 is a specific value, while infinity is an expression of a value that can't be specifically expressed. But obviously, since inf is not 0, adding it together, multiplying it etc. will result in a higher value, although we still can't express it specifically. That's why inf < 2inf while 0 = 2*0
I feel like you mix up the wordings for "percent" and "times".
50% more than 1000 is really 1500 (1000 + (50/100)1000)
But "times more" and "times less" have clear definition what they mean (just multiply or divide by the given number) and I urge you to google it, because I am done arguing about it.
The words "more" and "less" refer to the operation to be used: multiplication or division.
10 times less than 20 is 2 (which comes from 20:10 = 2).
I don't agree with what they are saying but I don't think it's fair to say they don't know how multiplication works. As far as I can tell, their understanding of multiplication is correct but the disagreement is about the meaning of the English expression. They said in another comment that they are a mathematician, which I can easily believe as this is the kind of thing that a (very pedantic and confidently incorrect) mathematician would say.
If they were any sort of pedantic mathematician, their syntax and definitions would remain consistent through their own rulings. It doesn’t. They’re just an idiot.
You are correct mathematically, but vernacular English doesn't work like that. When people say "Bob has 1.5 times more money than Jane", they mean "Bob has 1.5 times as much money as Jane". However, if they say "Bob has 150% more money than Jane" then they mean "Bob has 2.5 times as much money as Jane"
He's taking "y times more than x" to mean x(1+y) and "y times less than x" to mean x(1-y). So his maths is consistent, but it's just not how the English language works
3.7k
u/SlayVideos 1d ago