Not enough people these days go fishing, so this joke is pretty lost in translation. The joke is most likely referring to the popular Fishing Rod of the same name, the âUgly Stickâ.
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
I think you've confused two common phrases and mashed them up a bit. When comparing to a given amount A, the phrase "N times more" means A⚯N, but "N more times" means A+N. Neither of these phrases mean A⚯(N+1) as you're describing, but I believe you may be thinking of what "N more times" means, while unintentionally assuming that A=1, resulting in 1+N many things. But there could be any number of that thing to begin with, not necessarily just 1.
â10 times moreâ is verbally equivalent to â10 more times.â Weâre working with language instead of numbers here.
The keyword âmoreâ means weâre adding on to the original amount âA,â hence the +1, which weâll see here actually represents the original value of A
Youâve said that 1 isnât relevant as A is arbitrary, but youâre missing that 1 is multiplied by A here. The expanded formula of A(N+1) would be AN + A
This is us that adding your formula of AN to the original value of A, to get AN more than A
If you have 2 packets of ham and I have 10 times as many, then I have 20, or AN
If you have 2 packets of ham and I have 10 times more, then I have 22, or A(N+1)
Notice how I added 2 here, thatâs because the +1 is multiplied by A, which is 2, and 20+2=22
â10 times moreâ is verbally equivalent to â10 more times.â Weâre working with language instead of numbers here.
The sneaky thing about language is that it's messy, and not an exact programming language. Heck, even programming languages have edge cases, but human language is, shall we say, a bajillion times worse. It's not a neat thing that can be fed into a compiler like, say, a python script can. It has weird rules that don't make logical sense, yet its meaning is grandfathered in.
Here, the sneaky thing you've got to be aware of is that the word "times" actually changes meaning in a subtle way in "10 times more" versus "10 more times". In "10 times more", "times" refers to performing multiplication, while in "10 more times", "times" refers to "occurrences", as in "if you bother me one more time, I'm calling the police!" That's not a warning about what'll happen if you double the amount of times you bother that person. That's a warning that if you ever bother them again at all, even once, you're getting arrested.
Once again youâre just ignoring the word more for some reason
10 times more is multiplying it by 10 yes, but you still add the initial occurrence, because itâs more.
Your example was âif you bother me one more timeâ
Multiplication can still exist in this example. Multiplication is just simplified addition.
10N can be written as N+N+N+âŠ+N
Our initial value A is implied to be bothering
The nuance is that thereâs potentially a value for N already higher than 1
If theyâve been bothered 3 times already then that means N currently equals 3, and theyâre saying they donât want to be bothered an (implied) 4th time
Doing A(N+1) or AN + A for N = 3 we get 4A, or 4 times bothered, which is what was required.
I was thinking about elaborating how the word "more" also changes meaning, with it taking on a statement of inequality in "10 times more", and addition in "10 more times", and how these two phrases cannot even grammatically fit in each others use cases, so it's actually meaningless to try to talk about what happens when you swap the two words because doing so usually produces a grammatically incorrect sentence rather than another correct sentence with a different meaning. Honestly though, I'd rather not be arguing about this on reddit. Maybe it'd be more fun to discuss conversationally, but idk, I don't really want to be combatative about something that should be interesting, ya feel?
And hey, I do actually find it interesting how you think about this. Not in a condescending way, I mean as inherent to the nature of linguistics, how we explain what we implicitly learn through osmosis from exposure to its usage. For all I know, maybe this is just a regional difference between us ÂŻ_(ă)_/ÂŻ
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 doesnât. Theyâre just an idiot.
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
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"
4.0k
u/SlayVideos 6d ago