- Thread starter Solle
- Start date

One four times as small (smaller or 'as the original') would be 1½ inches

One three times as small (smaller) would be 2 inches

One two times (twice) as small (smaller) would be 3 inches

thus we know there will be a reduction in size, and that reduction will be determined by the first number given:

One one and a half times as small (smaller) would be 6 divided by 1½ = 4 inches.

English - U.S.

English-Ireland (top end)

...

thus we know there will be a reduction in size, and that reduction will be determined by the first number given:

One one and a half times as small (smaller) would be 6 divided by 1½ = 4 inches.

thus we know there will be a reduction in size, and that reduction will be determined by the first number given:

One one and a half times as small (smaller) would be 6 divided by 1½ = 4 inches.

Plausible, I suppose, although "one and a half times smaller than" suffers from the same problem as three times <as big as/ bigger than>, and that on top of what seems to me to be the illogical combination of "times" and "smaller" generally makes my once-mathematical brain hurt.

English - USA

I would recommend

Instead of saying "one and a half times smaller" the proper thing to say would be "two-thirds as big".

I agree with Panjandrum. "One time smaller" than something would be zero, nothing; "one and a half times smaller" would be . . . I don't know; antimatter, I guess.

one timeø = one instance; unit of scale; one size; etc.

one times = one multiplied by

Unfortunately we cannot tell whether the times in 'five times' is "multiplied by five" or five instances removed from."

However, as with so many examples of the numeral one, trivial results or mathematical anomalies occur, making 1 a poor example of anything mathematical (except 1 itself.)

Were it "One times smaller" your example's corollary would mean that dividing anything by 1 would result in zero... and to create a negative integer, there would have to be a negative integer (or odd number of them) in the original calculation.

extremely bad English, for the reasons Egmont pointed out.

I would recommend

Instead of saying "one and a half times smaller" the proper thing to say would be "two-thirds as big".