alt Hacker NewsI really wish people would stop saying N times smaller than something when making a comparison; that makes no sense - it's 1/9th (11.11%) the size. You don't get a smaller quantity by multiplying by a number greater than 1.0. You could instead reverse the subjects being compared - "the original model is 9x bigger than this new smaller, efficient model" or some such. That makes sense.
I keep seeing this being used when people talk about efficiency or performance gains and it's just very unintuitive language.
Replies
If we were talking about speed instead of size, i think it would be perfectly reasonable to say 9x faster. I'm not sure I agree that 9x smaller is unintuitive. It makes sense to me.
It's simple
If 9 is "9 times greater" than 1 then 1 must be "9 times smaller" than 9
It'd help if you read "9 times" with the operator which is what's being flipped instead of with the number
They probably rephrased it from some more technical form like "we compressed the model by a factor of 9" or "we've improved the packing efficiency of the model by 9x". Where these are measurements of the transformation the model is undergoing, not measurements of the resulting model.
Me too!! It's a huge pet peeve. And it's so hard to get people to see how it's linguistically AND mathematically WRONG.
This sounds like the same kind of error as writing "0.10 cents" because it's less than a dollar when the number is in dollars regardless of how big or small it is
But we're cutting drug prices 500, 800, 1700%! Numbers nobody thought were possible.
I completely agree and this is a pet peeve of mine so it's nice to be validated :]
This is widespread usage.
I don't see what makes it hard to understand.
Eh, when I read smaller with an integer multiplier, I mentally switch to the reciprocal. Easier than convincing the world not to use "9x smaller". Do you feel the same way about "9x faster"? What you're actually measuring is time, and "faster" is the reciprocal of time, similarly to "smaller" being the reciprocal of size.
I agree it makes little sense in a literal mathematical take but "it's 9x smaller" or is too much of linguistic advantage compared to "the original is 9x larger" or "it's 1/9th as large" to expect a change with. You don't have to invoke fractions, it keeps the thing in focus as the first subject, it matches the pattern of the inverse statement, and it's just plain short... so that's what people will adapt and interpret the meaning to be.
One other way to map both types of linguistic statement consistently to math is to interpret "9x" as "there is a 9 times difference between these two things" and then "smaller"/"larger" tells you which end of that separation the subject is (rather than specifying whether the multiplication builds up or down).