# three times longer than=three times as long as?



## kent78

Hi,
Look at the following two sentences:
The rope is three times longer than that one.
The rope is three times as long as that one.
Do the two sentences mean the same?
Thanks in advance!


----------



## se16teddy

Unless the speaker or writer defined it differently, I would suppose that _three times longer than_ meant the same thing as _four times as long as_. "Longer" seems to refer to the *difference* between the two lengths.


----------



## Spira

3 hours is three times longer than one hour, isn't it? The times refers to a multiplication.
And 3 hours is 3 times as long as one hour.
So they both mean the same in my book.


----------



## Loob

There are several previous threads about this type of issue, kent. Here's one that give links to some earlier threads: ...times ... than/as.


----------



## kent78

From above, there still is no agreement about the two sentences. Anyway, thank you three for your timely reply.


----------



## Spira

You are correct Kent. There is no agreement.
I am amazed reading the links provided by Loob (and, indirectly, others) that 3 x longer, or any x longer, can be interpreted as the (multiplication x) plus the original figure.
Smacks to me of looking for complications just for the sake of it, but there you are.
I still say that a film 3 times longer than another lasts 300% the time of the other.
But others disagree.


----------



## jonmaz

If I may be permitted to say, "The rope is one times longer than that one", then one is twice the length of the other...not of equal length. The speaker (writer) has indicated that one is longer than the other.
 

This seems to support the notion that _three times longer than_ means the same thing as _four times as long as_.


----------



## Spira

jonmaz said:


> If I may be permitted to say, "The rope is one times longer than that one", then one is twice the length of the other...not of equal length. The speaker (writer) has indicated that one is longer than the other.
> 
> 
> This seems to support the notion that _three times longer than_ means the same thing as _four times as long as_.


 
I understand your reasoning, jonmaz, but the simple truth is that native English speakers would NEVER say something is one time (or one times) longer than another thing. It's just not said. Or understood.
If you mean double the length, then choose "double" as your verb, or "twice" the length.

You see: 1 times 1 = 1, whereas 1 plus 1 = 2
2 times 1 = 2
3 times 1 = 3 etc


----------



## True_Liberal

I have seen a like expression "three times less than ..." or "117% less than ..." used in print. I submit that this is meaningless - unless the writer deigns the cite the actual numbers involved.


----------



## jonmaz

Spira said:


> I understand your reasoning, jonmaz, but the simple truth is that native English speakers would NEVER say something is one time (or one times) longer than another thing. It's just not said. Or understood.


 


Thanks Spira.    We speak a version of English down here in Australia and, happily, I too like "native English speakers", have never and would never say something like "one times".   I failed to make that clear it seems.

I am from the camp who when saying or hearing that b is three times longer than a, believes b to be four times the length of a.   Obviously such statements are ambiguous and if one's life depended upon knowing the actual length of a rope, it would be prudent to construct the sentence providing unmistakable details.

In the meantime...isn't this fun!


----------



## Spira

Jonmaz, I actually did not notice that you were from Australia, and therefore a native English-speaker! My apologies.
Having said that, no, you did not make it clear that you would not say "one times".
Which is what lead me to believe that English was not your first language.

I have discovered the existence of "your camp" on this question only today thanks to this forum.


----------



## jonmaz

Hello Spira.   An apology was not sought or necessary but thanks anyway.

Our primary task is to help the Chinese speaking kent78 with his/her enquiry.   I think that, between us all, we have shown that there probably are better ways of describing the relative lengths of ropes.   “This rope is three times the length of that one” would be simple enough.


----------



## arueng

<<Moderator note : Arueng's question has been merged with this thread>>

It usually takes me ten minutes to get to the train station.
It takes me thirty minutes to get to the train station during rush hours.


Hi,
Is it right to combine the above two into the following one? If not, how should I say it right? Thanks.

It takes me three times more time than usual to get to the train station during rush hours.


----------



## velisarius

If it took you twenty minutes you would say "It took me *twice as long *as usual".
If it takes you thirty minutes you say "It takes me *three times longer* than usual".


----------



## arueng

Thanks, Velisa, for the quick reply.
Your versions are perfect to me.
I wonder if the following are also ok.

It takes me triples as much time as usual.
It takes me three times as much time as usual.


----------



## velisarius

It takes me triples as much time as usual. 
It takes me three times as much time as usual I don't find this incorrect, but the repetition of 'time' is clumsy and I haven't seen or heard it used. There are other possibilities, but they seem clumsy to me. Do others have any suggestions?​


----------



## JulianStuart

velisarius said:


> If it took you twenty minutes you would say "It took me *twice as long *as usual".
> If it takes you thirty minutes you say "It takes me *three times longer* than usual".


I would advise caution on the use of a comparative followed by than.  I would stick with "three times as long" to avoid the possible interpretation that it takes  "X minutes plus 3x minutes".  I'll see if I can find a thread with that discussion. Here's one such thread.


----------



## Cenzontle

Julian is right about the ambiguity of "three times longer", but (unfortunately for those of us who prefer logical expression ) people talk that way.
I agree with velisarius that it's better to use "longer", in order to avoid the repetition of "time" (with different meanings).


----------



## JulianStuart

Or even "three times as long as usual" - avoiding the repetition and the ambiguity


----------



## wandle

<<Moderator note: Wandle's comment was added to this thread before the insertion of posts 13-19 by the merge operation>>
p





jonmaz said:


> I am from the camp who when saying or hearing that *b* is three times longer than *a*, believes *b* to be four times the length of *a*.


Well, that beats all. This is directly contrary to what we are taught in school about the meaning of the English expression 'three times longer than' (at least, what I was taught and what everyone I have ever known or read would understand).

What could possibly be the logic which makes three times equal four times?

Having got over my initial amazement, and attempting to find some sense in it, I arrive at the following. 

Suppose *a* is two feet long.
If we say *b* is three feet longer than *a*, we mean that *b* equals *a* plus three feet. In this case, *b* is five feet long.

Accordingly, it seems, the three-equals-four camp are saying to themselves:

"If we say *b* is three times longer than *a*, we mean that *b* equals *a* plus 'three times'.
Now three times two is six, therefore *b* equals two plus six: equals eight feet long."

This seems to me to be nothing but a misunderstanding of 'three times longer than'.
'Three times longer' expresses simply a multiplication (*b = 3a*),  not a multiplication plus an addition (*b = 3a + a*).


----------



## Lucia_zwl

Oh I also have problem with twice and triple...so, continue with the OP, may I say:
_It takes me 30 minutes to get to the train station during rush hours, nearly triple that as usual._
(as I found in the dictionary: triple something--three times as large as something)

And what about replacing "triple" with "twice", like:
_..., nearly twice as usual._ (without that, I assume)

What do you think? Thanks!


----------



## JulianStuart

Stick A is three feet longer than stick B.  if stick B is 1 foot long, then stick A is 4 feet long.
In this construction we "add" the three excess items to the original item.

I believe the above is the cause of the confusion in those who are confused.  
Some seem to see it as analogous Stick A is three times longer than stick B.  

Given that there are people who think this way, the "times [comparative] than" construction should be avoided.


----------



## wandle

> Stick A is three feet longer than stick B. if stick B is 1 foot long, then stick A is 4 feet long.
> In this construction we "add" the three excess items to the original item.


Yes. We are addding an express quantity (three feet).

However, 'three times *x*' is not an express quantity, but a function of a variable. 
The variable to which it applies cannot be anything other than the initial quantity (here, one foot).
Once that calculation is worked out (three times one is three), the expression of the formula 'three times longer' is completed. Job done.



> Given that there are people who think this way, the "times [comparative] than" construction should be avoided.


It seems a very sad day if we are reduced to this precaution.


----------



## JulianStuart

wandle said:


> It seems a very sad day if we are reduced to this precaution.


 I agree and I was surprised to find that ambiguity existed.  However, I also find it hard to conceive of a world where my innate mathematical ability did not exist and the whole numerical skill was absent. I was born finding arithmetic amd mathematics very easy (perhaps you were too ) but not everyone was so fortunate and some would simply not understand the meaning of 


> However, 'three times x' is not an express quantity, but a function of a variable


.


----------



## RM1(SS)

wandle said:


> Yes. We are addding an express quantity (three feet).
> 
> However, 'three times *x*' is not an express quantity, but a function of a variable.
> The variable to which it applies cannot be anything other than the initial quantity (here, one foot).
> Once that calculation is worked out (three times one is three), the expression of the formula 'three times longer' is completed. Job done.



Precisely.  And "three feet longer" than one foot is four feet.


----------



## wandle

RM1(SS) said:


> Precisely.  And "three feet longer" than one foot is four feet.


Correct. That is an example of addition.
'Three times longer' is an example of multiplication. Three times one equals three.

Each of the two cases involves one operation.


----------



## RM1(SS)

"Three times longer" tells how much *longer* than the original length.  The new length is derived by adding the additional amount to the original.  Three times longer than one is (three times one plus one).


----------



## wandle

RM1(SS) said:


> "Three times longer" tells how much *longer* than the original length.  The new length is derived by adding the additional amount to the original.  Three times longer than one is (three times one plus one).


The operation 'times' does not and cannot include the operation 'plus'.
If there is to be an addition as well as a multiplication, it needs to be separately expressed.

The expression 'three times one plus one' does include two operations, separately expressed.
The expression 'three times longer than one' contains only one operation. It is multiplication only.


----------



## chevrons2

The confusion isn't in the meaning of 'three times'. It is in the meanings of and differences between the expressions: 'as long as' & 'longer than'.

My interpretation are that:
1. 'as long as' means 'the same length as'.
2. 'longer' means 'additional length'.
3. 'longer than...' means 'additional length compared to...', or 'a length in addition to that of the object to which it is being compared'.

If you just say that one thing is 'longer than' another thing, then there can be no confusion: One thing has an additional length when compared to the other.

However, when you quantify the difference in length, you have two ways of doing so:
1. You can either say that one thing is a number of times the length of the other, (eg: '...three times as long as...', or
2. You can say that one thing is a number of times longer than the other.
However, the number used will not be the same in each case.
If you are saying that one thing is 'longer than' the other, then whatever the quantity is, it is 'in addition to' the length of the other.

Therefore, in the expression 'three times longer than one', there ARE two operations: multiplication and addition.

Lets change the expression slightly, to: '3 times longer than a'.
'three times' means that you are multiplying 'a' by three:  3 x a = 3a.
'longer than' means 'an additional length' or 'a length in addition to', so you need to add it.
So, 'three times longer than a' means: 3 x a in addition to a:  3a + a = 4a.

If you mean that one thing is 3 times the length of the other, that's what you should say: 'b is three times as long as a'.
If you say that it 'b is three times LONGER THAN a' you are stating that 'the ADDITIONAL LENGTH of b is three times that of a', (so b = a + 3a =4a).


----------



## chevrons2

If the above still does not clarify the situation, how about we break remove the confusion by breaking down the two expressions mathematically:
Some people are claiming that:
'b is three times AS LONG AS a' is the same as 'b is three times LONGER THAN a', so:
'b is 3 times AS LONG AS a'      =       'b is 3 times LONGER THAN a',
Then, if we take away the objects (b and a), to just leave us with the expressions that describe the relationship between the objects:
'three times AS LONG AS'         =          'three times LONGER THAN'
Does anyone still think that makes sense?. If so, how about we take away the quantity:
'AS LONG AS'         =          'LONGER THAN'
If anyone still believes that the two expressions mean the same thing, please explain to me where I have gone wrong.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Chevrons2, your mathematical argument is impregnable.

However, English doesn't work like that - English isn't mathematics.  I think that enough people have responded to this question (myself included) to demonstrate that both these terms are regularly used to mean three times, not four times, _whatever _comparative phrase comes after.

Having said that, I would advise a foreign learner to use "this rope is three times *as long as* that one" if only to remain consistent with the expressions "this rope is as long as that one" and "this rope is twice as long as that one" where "longer" can't be used.


----------



## chevrons2

I'm not sure where the misconception about 'as long as' and 'longer than' having the same meaning originally came from but I agree that it is commonplace. I would guess that like a lot of commonly used incorrectly constructed english, it came from american influences and quickly spread due to media and advertising.
If incorrect english is used by more and more people, at what point does it become used often enough to become 'correct'? Have we reached that point with expressions like: "I will likely go out tonight"? I've heard lots of people use 'likely' in this way, so should I now claim that this is correct use of english because it has become common usage by the people around me? 
Going back to some people's belief that 'as long as' means the same as 'longer than', should this be accepted in advertising? If one company claims that their product lasts '2 times LONGER' than that of their competition, should we accept their claim,  even though it actually only lasts twice AS LONG AS the rival's product? Is what they claim correct? Is it accurate? Is it ambiguous? Is it misleading?  Is it correct use of English?


----------



## Delvo

If you want to be certain of how your sentence will be interpreted, just stick to "...as long as". There's no ambiguity with that one alone; it's only "...longer than" that introduces any trouble.


----------



## Andygc

chevrons2, there are plenty of BE speakers here who, correctly in my opinion, interpret "three times longer than a one-foot rule" as meaning "one yard", and plenty of AE speakers who have expressed the contrary opinion that it means "four feet". Suggesting that Americans speak an inferior form of English which has in some way had an adverse effect on proper English strikes me as not only being wrong-headed, but pretty offensive. 

Your claim to uphold correct usage might be helped, a little, if you wrote "American" and "English" correctly.


----------



## chevrons2

Delvo said:


> If you want to be certain of how your sentence will be interpreted, just stick to "...as long as". There's no ambiguity with that one alone; it's only "...longer than" that introduces any trouble.


So we in agreement then, that the two expressions do not have the same meaning.
However, I can see that some may argue that common usage has (in the minds of those who commonly use one to mean the other) given them the same meaning, in the same way that some people might say 'I didn't say nothing' to mean the opposite.
Both sentences, 'This rope is three times as long as that one' & 'This rope is three times longer than that one' are correct uses of English to mean two different things. Either sentences can be used but in different circumstances. If anyone still thinks that 'common usage' dictates that they have the same meaning then do you also apply that criteria to the following:
One could say in coversation 'I didn't say nothing' to mean 'I didn't just sit there silently. I spoke out'. Someone else might say 'I didn't say nothing' to mean 'I didn't say anything'.
'I didn't say nothing' and 'I didn't say anything' have different meanings. I would suggest that using the expression 'I didn't say nothing' to mean 'I didn't say anything' is widespread in England. (Not just in locations where it could be considered to be local dialect). Does this common usage make its incorrect use acceptable now as correct use of English, in the same way that some are suggesting is the case with our 'as long as'/'longer than' expressions?


----------



## Englishmypassion

chevrons 2 said, "Both sentences, 'This rope is three times longer than that one' & 'This rope is three times longer than that one' are correct uses of English to mean two different things."
I think they are both the same, with no difference whatsoever.  Or have my eyes become too weak? You probably wanted to write "three times as long as" in one of them, chevrons 2.


----------



## chevrons2

I'm sorry Andygc. I did not mean to cause offence. I probably should have worded that better (!)
I am not suggesting that American English is inferior. I am saying that in advertising in England, the phrases and expressions used are very often taken from American English and/or youth culture without any regard for the correct use of English. In advertising, when comparing your product to someone else's, 'longer' is a good positive word for customers to subconsciously hear.
I do not claim to uphold correct usage. I am only giving my opinion and trying to explain why I believe what I believe about a particular expression that irritates me when it is used, in my opinion, incorrectly. I would be happy to accept that I may be mistaken if someone would explain why. I do not beleive that anyone here has adequately done that yet. You are absolutely correct about the way that I have written 'English' and 'American' on some occasions. I have been using a phone with a small key pad and predictive text but that is no excuse. I'm sure that I have made other mistakes too......


Englishmypassion said:


> chevrons 2 said, "Both sentences, 'This rope is three times longer than that one' & 'This rope is three times longer than that one' are correct uses of English to mean two different things."
> I think they are both the same, with no difference whatsoever.  Or have my eyes become too weak? You probably wanted to write "three times as long as" in one of them, chevrons 2.


Oops! I will go back and edit it. Thank you.


----------



## Barque

Whether "_three times longer than_" is commonly used to mean the same as "_three times as long as_" or not, I agree with Chevrons2 that they mean different things. 

Instead of "_three times_" which means "_multiplied by three_", let's use "_fifty percent_" which means "_one half times_" or "_multiplied by one half_". Most people would agree that "_fifty percent of its length_" and "_fifty percent longer than_" are two different things. Yes, I have used different terms - "_of_" instead of "_as long as_" but the general meaning and principle are the same.


----------



## Andygc

Barque, as has already been pointed out, English is neither mathematics nor logic. You can do as many arithmetic calculations as you like, but for many people, "three times longer than" and "three times as long as" mean the same. For me, and many others here, a yard is three times longer than a foot and a yard is three times as long as a foot. That's just the way the language is for us. Like wandle, I can't understand the argument that the answer is four feet. That's the way I've understood it since I was a child, and that meaning has nothing to do with an American influence on British English.

There's been exactly the same discussion in this forum about "... times bigger than ..." with exactly the same disagreement.


----------



## JulianStuart

The other position seems to be based on a parallel to "This stick is 3 feet longer than that one" where the extra is added to the original.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Andygc said:


> For me, and many others here, a yard is three times longer than a foot and a yard is three times as long as a foot. That's just the way the language is for us. Like wandle, I can't understand the argument that the answer is four feet.


Whereas I am utterly baffled that anyone could possibly think that "as long as" and "more than" mean the same.


----------



## atokad

In theory, I'm more sympathetic to view that "three times longer than" = "four times as long as."  That just makes more sense to me.  However, in practice, I think I rarely actually use the expression "times longer than" in this way.  I can split my usage into "careful usage" and "sloppy usage."

Sloppy usage:  If I compare a yard to a foot, the first number that comes into my head is 3.  Not 2.  So I'm going to use three, in combination with some expression involving length.  Maybe I'll say a yard is three times as long as a foot, or maybe I'll say a yard is three times longer than a foot.  I'm not being careful about whether my words are mathematically precise, so I'll say whatever phrase comes into my head first.  But note that whatever *phrasing* I use, the *number* is always three.  Maybe other people's brains work differently, but when I compare numbers, in most cases I tend to think in terms of ratios, not in terms of (ratio-1).  Even though the sentence _A yard is two times longer than a foot_ makes sense to me logically and mathematically, it strikes me awfully weird to use the number two when comparing feet and yards. It's even more difficult for me to imagine someone saying _A mile is 5279 times longer than a foot_.  

Careful usage:  I know that the phrase "three times longer than" could be interpreted differently by different people, so I'll avoid it entirely, and always switch to something unambiguous, like "three times as long as."


----------



## chevrons2

Atokad, you are the second person here to say that, although you might have used both expressions in the past to mean the same thing, you see that 'three times longer than' is ambiguous. 
The original poster asked whether the two expressions mean the same thing. Obviously it does not: 
There is no denying that some people do use both to mean the same thing. However, it seems that although 'as long as' will always be interpreted as intended, the interpretation of 'times longer than' will depended on the person hearing the expression and also on the subject of the comparison:
I agree that saying that a yard is 'three times as long as a foot' sounds much better than 'two times longer than a foot', because we assossiate the number 3 with the comparison of those lengths. This is another reason that 'as long as' is, in my opinion, a much more appropriate way to express what one is trying to convey.

I'm curious. Do those who still maintain that the two expressions have the same meaning feel the same about using the expression 'three times less than' to mean 'a third of' ? If so, I think we will need to start another thread!


----------



## JulianStuart

JulianStuart said:


> The other position seems to be based on a parallel to "This stick is 3 feet longer than that one" where the extra is added to the original.


In (what is now #22 in) this thread I said 





> Given that there are people who think this way (i.e. that they have the same meaning),
> 
> the "times [comparative] than" construction should be avoided.


 in favour of the "X times as adjective as .. " form.

The "times less than" does have its own thread, I think (well, here's one on the subject - it veers into "negative pressure /length etc and my brain hurt from some versions  )


----------



## chevrons2

Thanks Julian. I found, on another thread, a good example of what you and I have been trying to explain. I have quoted it below.
The 'times less than' discussion, on the thread that you linked to, could have been much easier to follow/explain using different examples but perhaps pursuing that here, on this thread, would complicate things, (although it seems that both expressions are used incorrectly for similar reasons, which is why I brought it up).
Anyway, here's that quote from another thread:


ge556 said:


> The example I use to show the difference is:
> 
> 1) My house is 50% as large as yours.
> 2) My house is 50% larger than yours.
> 
> If your house is 1000 square feet, then 1) says that mine is 500, and 2) says that mine is 1500.
> 
> Therefore, given another pair:
> 
> 3) My house is twice as large as yours.
> 4) My house is two times larger than yours.
> 
> 3) says that mine is 2000, and 4) means that mine is 3000.
> 
> Mathematically, I think the correct answer is clear.  However, don't count on anyone getting it right.  Most people say "times more" when they mean "times as much".  I think they say it because it sounds like more.  It sounds like more because it IS more.  More than they mean.
> 
> The best way to be correct AND properly understood is to say "times as much".


----------



## Keith Bradford

I think that one of the reasons this thread has dragged on so long without agreement (and I for one do not concur with Chevron's statement in #35 "So we in agreement then, that the two expressions do not have the same meaning") is the old belief that words in themselves have a meaning.

Words do not have a meaning in themselves; they only have a meaning in context.  The word "pain" means something quite different for an Englishman and a Frenchman.  The word "long" doesn't mean the same for a mathematician and a psychiatrist. I understand RM1(SS)'s statement in #41 that he is _utterly baffled that anyone could possibly think that "as long as" and "more than" mean the same_.  They don't, *in abstraction*.  But once you put them together *in the context* of "three times as long as/longer than" then you just have to accept that many millions of educated and literate native English speakers from both sides of the Atlantic use them synonymously and don't find their everyday conversations handicapped by it.  Funny old language, isn't it?


----------



## Englishmypassion

I, a non-native, have always believed the two to mean the same thing, but if I concentrate on "longer" and its meaning, I get confused ( only now, never before!). But I will take Keith Bradford's explanation and save myself.





Keith Bradford said:


> Words do not have a meaning in themselves; they only have a meaning in context.




And a full context and a complete sentence are what an OP is asked to provide in WR even if he/she asks the meaning of "iPod" or "methane", for example.


----------



## chevrons2

Really? 
Obviously some words can have more than one meaning but just because some do, that doesn't mean that you can apply that to any word you choose. Anyway, we are not asking whether any of the words in these expressions, or the expressions as a whole, can have more than one meaning, (are we?). We are asking whether the different words, or the different expressions, have the same meaning. The words that are identical in each expression mean exactly the same thing in each expression. The words that are different in each expression, (eg: 'long' and 'longer'), do not have the same meaning and therefore gives the two expressions different meaning.

I completely agree that many people use 'three times longer than' to mean 'three times as long as'. You, (and others), have suggested that this is therefore 'common usage' and therefore should be accepted. You referred to my post #35. Here is another part of that post:

Either sentence can be used but in different circumstances. If anyone still thinks that 'common usage' dictates that they have the same meaning, then do you also apply that criteria to the following:
One could say in conversation 'I didn't say nothing' to mean 'I didn't just sit there silently. I spoke out'. Someone else might say 'I didn't say nothing' to mean 'I didn't say anything'.
'I didn't say nothing' and 'I didn't say anything' have different meanings. I would suggest that using the expression 'I didn't say nothing' to mean 'I didn't say anything' is widespread in England. (Not just in locations where it could be considered to be local dialect). Does this common usage make its incorrect use acceptable now, as correct use of English, in the same way that some are suggesting is the case with our 'as long as'/'longer than' expressions?


----------



## Keith Bradford

I think you may have overlooked the phrase "many millions of _educated _and _literate _native English speakers" in my post #46 (my emphasis). This is the same rule that has governed English for centuries, despite efforts by a few more logical minds to impose a mathematical or classical model on the language, and despite illiteracies like 'I didn't say nothing'.


----------



## chevrons2

Sorry. Yes. Although I read what you had written, I didn't take that part in fully. I agree that a large number of people use one expression to mean the other. However, as the original question was whether the two phrases had the same meaning, I feel that in the interest of helping those people who want an answer to that question, we need to explore the reasons why some people believe that they are different. I feel that I and others have given several logical reasons why they are not. I don't think that anyone has put forward a persuasive enough argument yet, that the two expressions mean the same thing. Saying that 'longer than' means the same as 'as long as' just because a large enough number of people believe it is not enough to convince me at least. Maybe it is for some people. I'm afraid that I need a rational explanation of how the two expressions mean the same thing. I'm not going to blindly believe something just because millions of people apparently believe it.
Here's an alternative to that last sentence: 
I'm not going to blindly believe something just because apparently millions of people believe it.
I could have used either sentence to end my ramble but they mean different things, no matter how many people would not see a difference.


----------



## Einstein

This is a case where the language we use in everyday life, even between "educated and literate native speakers", needs to be refined when we are discussing precise concepts in science or economics. In everyday discussions, "three times as long" and "four times as long" both mean "a lot longer" and that's why, normally, we don't need to bother too much about whether "three times longer" and "four times as long" mean the same thing. Educated and literate native speakers are part of our world, but so are those who examine the logic of what we say and ask for something more precise.
However, we all agree that 10 percent as much and 10 percent more do not mean the same thing. At what point do percentages and times amount to the same thing?
Mr Smith has £200 while Mr Brown has £800. Posed like this, most people will reply either that Mr Brown has four times as much as Mr Smith or that Mr Brown has four times more.
But if we pose it differently, saying that Mr Brown has £600 more than Mr Smith, are we sure that none of the above people will say that he has three times more?

With some colleagues I once came across a sentence like "Mr Smith earns one and a half times less than Mr Brown". If Mr Brown earns £100, how much does Mr Smith earn? Probably £66.66 (because £100 is one and a half times as much as £66.66), but it could also be £40 (because £100 is "one and a half times more" than £40) or even minus £50 (£100 less £150)! We all agreed that it would be better to state the figures and not talk about times at all!


----------



## JulianStuart

chevrons2 said:


> I'm not going to blindly believe something just because millions of people believe it.


But you cannot simply disbelieve _the fact that many millions think they do_.

A: This one is _longer than_ that one. 
B: By how much?
A: It's _three times_ the length.

So A puts the words together into one sentence:

A: _This one is three times longer than that one_.

It's just how some people see it

(See my sig  )


----------



## RM1(SS)

wandle said:


> The operation 'times' does not and cannot include the operation 'plus'.
> If there is to be an addition as well as a multiplication, it needs to be separately expressed.
> 
> The expression 'three times one plus one' does include two operations, separately expressed.
> The expression 'three times longer than one' contains only one operation. It is multiplication only.


The addition is implied by longer than.  "A board which is six feet longer than a three-foot board" makes no reference to any sort of operation, but it means that the board is six feet plus tree feet long.


----------



## RM1(SS)

JulianStuart said:


> The other position seems to be based on a parallel to "This stick is 3 feet longer than that one" where the extra is added to the original.


Why would the two cases be different?


----------



## Andygc

RM1(SS) said:


> Whereas I am utterly baffled that anyone could possibly think that "as long as" and "more than" mean the same.


Nobody has suggested that they do. The discussion is about "three times longer than=three times as long as?" I don't see the phrase "more than" in that.



chevrons2 said:


> but they mean different things


No, they mean different things to you and others who share your interpretation.


chevrons2 said:


> I feel that I and others have given several logical reasons why they are not.


As some of us have already said, English is not an exercise in logic.

The benefit of this thread to those who ask the question is that they now know that the expression "three times longer than" is not interpreted consistently by native English speakers. Good advice for learners of English as a foreign language was given way back in this thread:


JulianStuart said:


> the "times [comparative] than" construction should be avoided


----------



## chevrons2

JulianStuart said:


> But you cannot simply disbelieve _the fact that many millions think they do_.


I don't! 
I accept that it is likely that millions of people believe it. I accept that millions of people believe all sorts of things that differ from my beliefs! 
All I am saying is that just because a large number of people believe something, it doesn't make it true.
I'm still waiting for an explanation to support the believe that the two expressions mean the same thing. 'Because a lot of people believe it' is not an explanation.


----------



## Einstein

I know this is an English Only thread, but it may console foreros to know that exactly the same ambiguity exists in many other languages.


----------



## chevrons2

Thank you Andygc. I agree with most of what you say, especially with regard to the benefit of this thread.
However I believe that the comparison with 'more than' is relevant:
'longer than' means 'more length than', whereas 'as long as' means 'the same length as'.


----------



## JulianStuart

chevrons2 said:


> I'm still waiting for an explanation to support the believe that the two expressions mean the same thing. 'Because a lot of people believe it' is not an explanation.


No, it is an observation 

Post #52 attempts to show how A (and many others) can put the sentence together with words differently from the way you (and I and others) put the sentence together.


----------



## PaulQ

There is a need to distinguish between

A is *another *three times longer than B / A is three times as long *again *as B, in which there is an addition and multiplication, i.e. (B + (3 x B)) = A

And

A is three times longer than B in which there is only multiplication = (3 x B) = A


----------



## chevrons2

Einstein said:


> With some colleagues I once came across a sentence like "Mr Smith earns one and a half times less than Mr Brown". If Mr Brown earns £100, how much does Mr Smith earn? Probably £66.66 (because £100 is one and a half times as much as £66.66), but it could also be £40 (because £100 is "one and a half times more" than £40) or even minus £50 (£100 less £150)! We all agreed that it would be better to state the figures and not talk about times at all!


Using the expression 'X times less' makes no sense at all. The result would always be a negative figure because 'one time less' would equal zero, so any more 'times less' would reduce the amount even further than zero. Although the expression is, in my opinion' used incorrectly in a similar way to the subject of this thread, I am not going to explain why for two reasons: Mainly because is not the subject of this thread but also because if I have failed to convince people about 'as long as' not being the same as 'longer than', I have no chance with 'times less'!


----------



## chevrons2

PaulQ said:


> There is a need to distinguish between
> 
> A is *another *three times longer than B / A is three times as long *again *as B, in which there is an addition and multiplication, i.e. (B + (3 x B)) = A
> 
> And
> 
> A is three times longer than B in which there is only multiplication = (3 x B) = A



Are you saying that my interpretaion of the meanings of 'long' and 'longer' are incorrect then?:

'longer than' means 'more length than' or 'a length in addition to', whereas 'as long as' means 'the same length as'.

My interpretation is that the addition is expressed by the 'er' on the end of the word 'longer'.


----------



## chevrons2

PaulQ said:


> There is a need to distinguish between
> 
> A is *another *three times longer than B / A is three times as long *again *as B, in which there is an addition and multiplication, i.e. (B + (3 x B)) = A


This is an interesting way of looking at it. I agree that by adding 'another' and 'again' you have given to two expressions the same meaning as each other.

Instead, let's remove the word 'longer' and replace it with 'length', so that we have 'the length of' and 'as long as', which I believe have a closer meaning to each other than 'longer than' and 'as long as':

'A is three times the length of B' / 'A is three times as long as B'.
I submit that both mean that (3 x B) = A.
In which case, why use 'longer than' when you mean 'the length of'.

As I suggested in my post immediately above this one, the reason that the meaning of the 'times longer than' expression differs from this, is that it uses the word 'longer', which implies an addition.


----------



## PaulQ

You cannot change "longer" for "length."

"Do you want the piece of wood to be this length?"
"Do you want the piece of wood to be longer?"


----------



## chevrons2

PaulQ said:


> You cannot change "longer" for "length."
> 
> "Do you want the piece of wood to be this length?"
> "Do you want the piece of wood to be longer?"



We appear to be in agreement then!
Just to clarify though: I didn't change 'longer' for 'length.'. I replaced 'longer' with 'the length of'.
Where we agree, is that they are not the same thing.
I did not replace 'longer' with 'the length of', to suggest that the two mean the same thing.
I did it to show that the meanings are different. I did it to show that 'the length of' is what some people seem to mean when they are, in my opinion, incorrectly saying 'longer'.


----------



## PaulQ

A .......3 foot.........
|_____|______|_____|

B...1 foot
|_____|

The rope A is three times longer (more lengthy; has three times the length) than (compared to) rope B. - A goes three times as far

A is three times as long as B. - B is one foot long - 3 x 1 = 3


----------



## chevrons2

PaulQ said:


> A .......3 foot.........
> |_____|______|_____|
> 
> B...1 foot
> |_____|
> 
> The rope A is three times longer (more lengthy; has three times the length) than (compared to) rope B. - A goes three times as far
> 
> A is three times as long as B. - B is one foot long - 3 x 1 = 3



Again, in the sentence: 'The rope A is three times *longer* (more lengthy; has three times *the length*) than (compared to) rope B. - A goes three times as far', you are suggesting that 'longer' means 'the length'.


----------



## Einstein

When I first heard, as a child or a teenager (because young people are literal-minded), that "A is three times more than B" when I knew A was three times as much as B, I immediately thought, "No, that's wrong". In my adult life I've become resigned to this confusion, but the practical problem is not how to describe a situation that we know but how to interpret a statement when we do not know the situation. If someone says "Rope A is 25 m long, while rope B is three times longer", I'm sure that a significant minority of people will ask, "Does that mean rope B is 75 or 100 m long?" To say that the majority don't see any difference between "times longer" and "times as long" doesn't solve the problem. As a member of this minority I always say "three times as long/much/big". There is no ambiguity at all in this.
As i said in an earlier post, we can get by in everyday life without resolving this confusion, but if we are writing a formal text, I strongly recommend using the unambiguous form.


----------



## Adrien de Croy

Actually it's much more clear if you consider fractions or absolute amounts.

if you have 2 objects

A is 10m long, B is 11m long

you would say 

B is 1m longer than A        (A + 1 = B)
B is 1.1 times as long as A (A x 1.1 = B)
B is 10% longer than A      (A + (10% x A) = B)
B is 110% as long as A      (A x 110% = B)

B is not 1.1 times longer than A, since 1.1 times 10m is 11 m, and B is NOT 11m longer than A, only 1m longer.

Flip it around.  How much longer than A is B?  1m
As a proportion of A, that's 10% (1m/10m), so B is 10% longer than A.

Think about this.  "I would like to make my boat 10% longer".  If your boat was currently 10m, how long are you asking it to be?  In this context saying the boat should now be 1m is retarded.

All you people who use longer than when you mean as long as are just using the language wrong, and unfortunately enough people do it now that any time longer than is used, it's now ambiguous and whenever you read a claim using that language you have to double check the maths. Thanks for that.  "As long as".


----------



## Andygc

No, that doesn'tmake it any clearer. Additions, fractions and percentages aren't multiplication. Post #66 demonstrates a perfectly logical way of understanding why a majority of English speakers aren't at all confused by these two ways of meaning the same thing.


----------



## chevrons2

....and posts #65 & #67 explains why they do not mean the same thing.

I do agree with you that additions, fractions and percentages aren't multiplication but nobody has said that they are!

What confuses me is how anyone can possibly think that "as long as" means the same as "longer than"!


----------



## siares

chevrons2 said:


> think that "as long as" means the same as "longer than"!


There is exactly the same thing in my language.
A is *3 metres longer* than B:    3 metres and longer are processed together as +3m.
A is *3 times* longer than *B*:       A = (?) + 3xB :       3 times and B are processed together as 3xB, longer (+) does not have anything associated with it and so is overlooked as white noise.
This thread is three times as long as necessary.


----------



## chevrons2

Contrary to what some people have said, nobody has suggested that there is an addition implied in "3 times". 
There is also no addition in "as long as".
However, "longer than" means "additional length, compared to". When one says "Rope A is 3 times longer than rope B", one is stating that, "(compared to ropeA), rope B has an ADDITIONAL length, 3 times the length of rope A".

"3 times longer" can not possibly mean "3 times as long as", no matter how many people believe that it does. Just because a number of people believe something, doesn't make it right.

Whilst I believe that the majority of people who call themselves "English speaking" do not actually speak English very well at all, I think it very unlikely that the majority of English speaking people believe that the two have the same meaning, even if a number of them might accept or excuse the use of "3 times longer" to mean "3 times as long", (as Andygc suggests), but only if they have become used to hearing it used in this way. One could equally suggest that the majority of English speaking people would not be confused by someone saying something like "I didn't do nothing". Understanding what the intended meaning probably is doesn't make it correct.

The original question asked whether the two have the same meaning. 
It is my opinion that they mean two very different things.
"3 times as long as" can not be misunderstood. It only has one meaning. It is not ambiguous. It can not be taken in any way other than as intended.
"3 times longer than" is used by some people to convey the same meaning and to other people it means something else.

Unfortunately, incorrect use spreads and becomes more and more accepted, to the point that people actually believe, despite all logic to contrary, that "longer than" means the same as "as long as"!


----------



## siares

chevrons2 said:


> When one says "Rope A B is 3 times longer than rope B A", one is stating that, "(compared to ropeA), rope B has an ADDITIONAL length, 3 times the length of rope A".


I hope I understood correctly that it is B which is longer.
In your view
_B is 3 times longer than A    _ expresses identical thing to
_B is 3 times A longer than A_?
Thank you.


----------



## AmaryllisBunny

The difference lies in "as < … > as" vs. "< …er > than."

Look at the following:
1a) _Line A_ is as long as _Line B_.
Line A _____
Line B _____
1b) _Line A_ is three times as long as _Line B_
Line A _______________
Line B _____

2a) _Line A_ is three times longer than _Line B_.
Line A ____________________
Line B _____

_As < … > as_ takes the base times the multiplier.
For example: Jill works three times as long as Jack.
Jill = 3*(Jack)
This means Jill works two times longer than Jack.

_< …er > than_ takes the base plus the base times the multiplier (or base times [multiplier plus one]).
For example: Jill works three times longer than Jack.
Jill=(3+1)*(Jack)
This means, Jill works four times as long as Jack.


Other examples:
_Line A_ is four times as long as _Line B_.
4*B=A

_Line A_ is four times longer than _Line B_
5*B=A
Why?
Because if it were 4*B=A, then _Line A_ would only be three times long*er*. This is the amount by which _Line A_ is greater in length than _Line B_.


*Simple Example:*
Bob has four more dogs than Sam. Sam has one dog. How many dogs does Bob have?
Sam = 1
Thus, Bob = 5.
Why? Because if Bob only had four dogs, then Bob would only have three more dogs than Sam.

The length of _Line A_ is 1cm. _Line B_ is 3cm long*er* than _Line A_. How many cm is _Line B_?
A=1cm
B=4cm


----------



## Andygc

chevrons2 said:


> ...and posts #65 & #67 explains why they do not mean the same thing.


No they don't. 


AmaryllisBunny said:


> The length of _Line A_ is 1cm. _Line B_ is 3cm long*er* than _Line A_. How many cm is _Line B_?
> A=1cm
> B=4cm


Again, addition, not multiplication. 3cm longer than 1cm is not 3 times longer than 1cm.

Never mind.


----------



## Barque

This is turning out to be like another thread that got revived recently: You've got another 'thing' / 'think' coming?

It's still got some catching up to do of course. That other thread at present is eight times longer, or nine times as long*.  

*In terms of pages, not posts.


----------



## chevrons2

siares said:


> I hope I understood correctly .....
> In your view
> _B is 3 times longer than A    _ expresses identical thing to
> _B is 3 times A longer than A_?
> Thank you.


Yes.
Those two particular statements can be expressed as B=3xA+A.
This obviously does not mean the same as B=3xA because "longer than" does not mean the same as "as long as".


----------



## chevrons2

AmaryllisBunny has clarified it well. Several of us have. It is very simple. 
Andyg: I can't understand this stumbling block over the addition that is indicated by the "er" in the word "longer".
If your definition of "longer" does not include an additional factor, (eg: "additional length"), then how do you define the word?


----------



## Einstein

Rope A is longer than rope B
Rope A is as long as rope B

Everyone will agree that these two sentences do not mean the same thing. So why should the addition of "three times" make their meanings identical?


----------



## chevrons2

Quite so.


----------



## Andygc

chevrons2 said:


> how anyone can possibly think that "as long as" means the same as "longer than"


That's known as a "straw man". Nobody has claimed that "as long as" means the same as "longer than". The discussion is about the meaning of "times as long as" and "times longer than".

I have yet to see anybody provide any evidence of normal usage to support their claims, so here goes. These are all examples from either the British National Corpus or the Corpus of Contemporary American English in which the meaning intended can be obtained by calculation. One needs no calculation as it comes from a mathematics teaching book.
---
If y stands for a number, then y + y + y + y stands for a number *4 times larger than *y. This new number can be written as 4 lots of y =4 x y 4y (The times sign x can be missed out)
---
Even with the improved health record of the USA and a population *four to five times bigger than Britain's*, more than 1 million Americans suffer a heart attack each year and more than half of them die before reaching hospital.
Populations in 2014 USA 318.9 million : UK 64.5 : 64.5 x 4 = 258 : 64.5 x 5 = 322.5 Actual multiplier is 4.94
---
There were significant extensions to the workstation range, alongside the parallel machine: right at the bottom is the PowerStation M20 a diskless system with a single 33MHz processor. It includes integrated Ethernet adaptor and a SCSI interface, so using the latter, it is possible to add a disk. Higher up in the range comes the 355 the 365 and the 375. These three differ from their predecessors by incorporating a 32Kb instruction cache, *four times bigger *than previous models.
Previous models instruction cache = 8Kb : 8 x 4 = 32 (Edit to correct an error)
---
At an average of 163 acres, British farms are *five times bigger* than European Community farms, at 33 acres.
33 x 5 = 165
---
It requires that the density of the universe, a number known as W, be exactly 1. Unfortunately, estimates of W based on the visible stars and galaxies were, at the time, much lower: around W=0.01.  ........  If the universe consisted of just the elements cooked up in the big bang, then W would be about 0.1 — *ten times larger* than it appears, but ten times less than theory demands.
0.01 x 10 = 0.1
---
It is blueish in colour, *six times larger* than a chicken's egg, and about to make ornithological history.
California Condor egg 280g : medium chicken egg varies between countries, but 50-60g
50 x 6 = 300 (that'll do as an approximation for 280g)
---
The mystery of JonBenet Ramsey's murder has now lasted *almost three times longer* than her short life. The 6-year-old beauty contestant was found dead in the basement of her upscale Boulder home the day after Christmas 1996
Report written 2013 : 2013-1996 = 17 : 6 x 3 = 18
---

Now, anybody who thinks x times longer/bigger/taller/larger than item means item + x.item, please be so kind as to find some examples of usage where that meaning can actually be quantified.


----------



## chevrons2

It's strange that in those examples, the writer felt the need to remove any ambiguity by giving all the figures to which they were referring. If only they had said "times as large/big/long" instead, everyone would have known what they meant!
I've heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" but on this occasion "seven wrongs don't make a right".
Seven is 2.5 times more than two.  7 = 2.5x2 +2.  Sorry, I could resist!

Andygc: I appreciate that you have your view on this and that you have obviously spent a lot of time finding examples to back up your position. I'm afraid that providing examples of what I consider to be incorrect statements isn't going to convince me that any number of wrongs make a right. It just confirms to me that this incorrect use is spreading. I am not going to spend my time doing the same as, similarly, I don't believe that it would convince you if I did.
Several people have tried to explain why we hold our views on this and, although we seem to have succeeded with some people, we have failed with you. As you appear to be the only one left here with such a strong view that the two statements mean the same thing, I was going to have one final try before giving up. This was the reason for my previous question asking whether or not you agreed that the definition of "longer" includes an element of "addition". Whether you did agree or whether you had an alternative definition, I thought it might possibly lead to a way in which I could convince you. You didn't respond. The fact that you did not entertain this line of explanation or several of the other logical explanations that various people have given, leads me to wonder why.

However, before giving up entirely, perhaps I should try a different approach. Let me try to understand it from your point of view:

A=1m, B=1m, C=2m, D=3m, E=4m F=5m
"F is 5 times as long as A".   /   "F is 5 times longer than A".
"E is 4 times as long as A".   /   "E is 4 times longer than A".
"D is 3 times as long as A".   /   "D is 3 times longer than A".
"C is twice as long as A".   /   "C is 2 times longer than A".
"B is as long as A".   /    "B is (??????) than A".   How would you express this?

I know that the following is not the subject of this thread but I think it is relevant:
Out of interest, do you also think that these two statements have the same meaning?:
"A is one third as long as D".   /   "A is 3 times shorter than D".
The reason that I think it is relevant is as follows:
"A is 3 times shorter than D" does not make any sense at all to me. However, if somebody said it, I would know what they meant.
Forgive me if I am mistaken but I believe that this has been quite a large part of your argument for accepting "3 times longer than" as having the same meaning as "3 times as long as".
There is a difference though. When someone says "3 times longer than", you can not know whether they mean it literally or (in my opinion) incorrectly. When someone says that something is "3 times shorter than", you can only assume that they mean "one third as long as", because it is extremely unlikely that they mean that the length of A is a minus figure. In that case, I think that, (and please correct me if I am mistaken), to follow your argument, this would mean that the "times less" statement should be accepted as correct, even more readily than the use of "3 times longer than" to mean "3 times as long as".



siares said:


> This thread is three times as long as necessary.


 I agree with you siares. In fact I would go so far as to say that it is three times longer than necessary!
I think we are at a stalemate, so depending on whether this post contributes to continued debate or just evokes more expressions of opinion, this may be my last post on the subject. I don't really know why I'm bothering anyway: I'm never going to reverse the tide of decay in the English language! I think I should go and get on with something more productive.


----------



## Andygc

chevrons2 said:


> It's strange that in those examples, the writer felt the need to remove any ambiguity by giving all the figures to which they were referring.


They didn't. Only two contained the data required for my simple calculations. 

You claim that my usage is incorrect. You provide no evidence, but just make an unsubstantiated claim. I am able to provide examples of what I consider normal English usage from two respected corpora of contemporary English. Those corpora do not support your claimed usage. If you are correct, you should have no difficulty in finding examples in written English. So find them.


----------



## chevrons2

Andygc said:


> They didn't. Only two contained the data required for my simple calculations.


  I'm sorry. I had assumed that you were quoting passages that included figures that confirmed your interpretation of the statements. If I now understand you correctly, you appear to be saying that the passages are not just copied and pasted without being edited to included figures that you have sourced from other places.
If that is the case, it does dilute your case somewhat. If not, then I'm sorry but I do not understand what you are saying.



Andygc said:


> You claim that my usage is incorrect.


I thought I had added "(in my opinion)" each time but perhaps I missed one/some. Do I really need to add it every time? [/QUOTE]



Andygc said:


> You provide no evidence, but just make an unsubstantiated claim. I am able to provide examples of what I consider normal English usage from two respected corpora of contemporary English. Those corpora do not support your claimed usage. If you are correct, you should have no difficulty in finding examples in written English. So find them.


What do you want me to find? Examples of what I consider to be the correct way of expressing the comparative difference in length/quantity/size of two subjects or examples of what I consider to be an ambiguous expression being used in an unambiguous way? I can't imagine a situation where the later would not be ambiguous, so there doesn't seem much point in looking for any examples.


chevrons2 said:


> The fact that you did not entertain this line of explanation or several of the other logical explanations that various people have given, leads me to wonder why.


.
Well, I did wonder why. I think that my suspicions have now been confirmed.


----------



## Andygc

It is a pity that your quotation of an old translation of Voltaire was lost with your deleted post. It was not what I asked for and I am sorry that I have not yet been able to find a link to it. You should read the passage more carefully. Voltaire was discussing the depredations of French tax farmers on the agricultural farmers. As the text said, they plundered the farmers of 4 times more than the tax that was due. Tax due 32 million livres. Plunder 120 million livres = approximately 4 x tax due. Makes a total of 150 million livres raised of the people. In other words, the usage I espouse goes back several hundred years.



chevrons2 said:


> Well, I did wonder why. I think that my suspicions have now been confirmed.


Wonder no longer. I don't waste my time on foolish questions. If two things are the same length, the word "longer" has no place in a comparison. It's about as sensible as asking what "one time longer" might mean.

"Correctness" in idiomatic English derives from the way the language is used. There are two groups of people. Those who think "x times larger than" is confusing and those who don't. Those who think it is confusing use "x times as big as". Those who don't find it confusing use "x times larger than". Therefore it is not confusing; if a sentence uses "x times larger than" it means the same as "x times as big as".

That was the point of my examples. Why they become worth less because some research was needed to find the data underlying them is a mystery to me. I suggested that those who think the form is confusing find examples of the other meaning they think the form can have. If they can find examples where "x times larger than" means "x+1 times as big as" then I could accept there is a possibility of confusion. Until then, the differing theoretical approaches to meaning are fruitless - how are the words actually used?


----------



## atokad

From The Economist's style guide:

"Take care. *Three times more than x* means *four times as much as x*."

Source: http://www.economist.com/styleguide/t


----------



## RedwoodGrove

atokad said:


> From The Economist's style guide:
> 
> "Take care. *Three times more than x* means *four times as much as x*."
> 
> Source: http://www.economist.com/styleguide/t



This is not correct. The volume of container X is one quart. The volume of container Y is three times more than X, so therefore it is a gallon? I _really_ don't think so. Under those circumstances the volume of container Y is 3 quarts. Andy has got it right here.

Yes, you can make a case here that "more" implies some kind of addition for "times more than": X + 3 times X = 4X. That simply is not how people use the terminology.


----------



## JulianStuart

atokad said:


> From The Economist's style guide:
> 
> "Take care. *Three times more than x* means *four times as much as x*."
> 
> Source: http://www.economist.com/styleguide/t





RedwoodGrove said:


> This is not correct. The volume of container X is one quart. The volume of container Y is three times more than X, so therefore it is a gallon? I _really_ don't think so. Under those circumstances the volume of container Y is 3 quarts. Andy has got it right here.
> 
> Yes, you can make a case here that "more" implies some kind of addition for "times more than": X + 3 times X = 4X. *That simply is not how people use the terminology.*


Well, clearly some people do, or this thread wouldn't be so long
Compare:
*Three times x* means *three times as much as x*.
*Three times more than x* means *four times as much as x*.

The volume of container A is one quart.

The volume of B is three times that of A.
The volume of B is three times more than that of A

The insertion of the blue text is what some people consider as the distinguishing factor between the two expressions: they think it must mean something otherwise it wouldn't have been inserted - ergo, the interpretation is the 4x version, while without "more than" is the 3x version.

I'm not going to assert that one is correct and the other not - it doesn't help.  Just being aware of the ambiguity of some versions is sufficient to ensure I don't use ambiguous expressions and that I ask for clarification for those who (in my book) do use ambiguous versions.


----------



## siares

atokad said:


> Economist's style guide


Good find on the rule, but there isn't an example of usage I can find. Do you happen to be registered/subscriberd, atokad?
What is a style guide? (how general?)
Snippet from search shows the principle is not enforced:
A connoisseur and his treasures | The Economist (from the print edition)
Apr 7, 2011 *...* In 1976 Houghton auctioned seven of its paintings at Christie's for £863,500 ( $1.6m): nearly four times more than the $450,000 he had paid for ...
(1,6 mil / 450 000 = 3.55)


----------



## Andygc

siares said:


> What is a style guide? (how general?)


The Economist style guide is only an authority within The Economist, like any other newspaper or magazine style guide. It's a guide for people who write for the paper or magazine.


siares said:


> Snippet from search shows the principle is not enforced:
> A connoisseur and his treasures | The Economist (from the print edition)
> Apr 7, 2011 *...* In 1976 Houghton auctioned seven of its paintings at Christie's for £863,500 ( $1.6m): nearly four times more than the $450,000 he had paid for ...
> (1,6 mil / 450 000 = 3.55)


As I said, those that think it's confusing don't use it, those that don't think it's confusing do use it, so it's not confusing.


----------



## siares

Except for the readers who've read the guide!


----------



## RedwoodGrove

A gallon is three times more than a quart? I have a hard time wrapping my head around this usage.


----------



## Andygc

RedwoodGrove said:


> A gallon is three times more than a quart? I have a hard time wrapping my head around this usage.


I sympathise, but if you want to understand why some people feel confused, you'll need to read the whole thread.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Andygc said:


> As I said, those that think it's confusing don't use it, those that don't think it's confusing do use it, so it's not confusing.


But confusion isn't about the user, it's about the reader or listener.

As JS said ...


JulianStuart said:


> The volume of B is three times that of A.
> The volume of B is three times more than that of A
> 
> The insertion of the blue text is what some people consider as the distinguishing factor between the two expressions: they think it must mean something otherwise it wouldn't have been inserted - ergo, the interpretation is the 4x version, while without "more than" is the 3x version.


So those who think it's confusing may not _use_ it, but they can be confused when they _read/hear_ it. So it is confusing. Those people don't go through the lengthy reasoning process in your #86, Andy — and one might wonder why they should have to, given the fundamental meaning of the words "more than".

In fact, the use of "three times more than", to mean "three times", is an idiom (in the sense of an expression of which the meaning is not deducible from the meanings of the individual words). Now idioms have their place in a language (life would be boring without them), but I'm not convinced that they're a good idea in numerical statements where precise meaning can be crucial.

Still, we can be thankful that English hasn't yet adopted the nonsensical French habit of saying "two times less than" for a half, "three times less than" for a third, etc! 

Ws


----------



## siares

Wordsmyth said:


> Still, we can be thankful that English hasn't yet adopted the French habit of saying "two times less than" for a half, "three times less than" for a third, etc!


Maybe too optimistic, see:
It operates at four times less pressure than the old ones.

added: I see you posted on this thread, linked to the previous
«x times less» – bad way to express a ratio?


----------



## RedwoodGrove

I understand that a gallon is three more quarts than one quart. (! quart plus 3 quarts equals 4 quarts or 1 gallon.) However, when you introduce multiplication (times) it is an entirely different situation from addition. "Three time more" suggests multiplication. A gallon can't be three times a quart under that scenario. Yes, the "more than" is ambiguous. I just think the "times" takes precedence over "more than". A gallon is four times a quart. I do begin to see where the ambiguity comes from.


----------



## Wordsmyth

siares said:


> Maybe too optimistic, see:
> It operates at four times less pressure than the old ones.


Aaaargh!!


siares said:


> added: I see you posted on this thread, linked to the previous
> «x times less» – bad way to express a ratio?


Yes I did, but more than half the thread (including my posts) has now disappeared. So perhaps we'd better not pursue "times less than" here.

Ws


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Wordsmyth said:


> Yes I did, but more than half the thread (including my posts) has now disappeared. So perhaps we'd better not pursue "times less than" here.



Unfortunately that construction is used quite frequently by journalists here in the US.


----------



## Einstein

Wordsmyth said:


> In fact, the use of "three times more than", to mean "three times", is an idiom (in the sense of an expression of which the meaning is not deducible from the meanings of the individual words). Now idioms have their place in a language (life would be boring without them), but I'm not convinced that they're a good idea in numerical statements where precise meaning can be crucial.


Exactly. In the vast majority of cases, particularly where the factor is a large number or where we're speaking in approximate terms, the distinction is not important. If someone says, "A is about 20 times greater than B", no one is going to ask, "Do you really mean 20? or 19? or 21?" But there is a minority of cases where it's important to distinguish.
If A is 74% greater than B, it is 1.74 times B. I think that here we are being _precise _and it is inappropriate to use an _imprecise _expression like "1.74 times greater".

Here we have an example of general language, which doesn't create problems in normal, everyday life, but in certain technical or legal contexts we do need to be more precise and logical about the exact meaning of what we are saying.


----------



## Andygc

"A is 1.74 times bigger than B" is precise. Nobody has yet provided an example of any writer using "A is X times bigger/longer/taller/wider/more than B" to mean A = X.B + B. All that has been produced is claims that it can have that meaning and spurious arithmetic to support those claims. People are making statements which have no basis in fact. I can and have found examples going back 400 years where the usage was unquestionably A = X.B and despite some effort I have failed to find one meaning A = X.B + B.

Where is the evidence that, in written and spoken English, "A is X times bigger than B" has ever meant anything other than A = X.B?


----------



## Wordsmyth

Andygc said:


> I can and have found examples going back 400 years where the usage was unquestionably A = X.B and despite some effort I have failed to find one meaning A = X.B + B.





Andygc said:


> Where is the evidence that, in written and spoken English, "A is X times bigger than B" has ever meant anything other than A = X.B?





Andygc said:


> I suggested that those who think the form is confusing find examples of the other meaning they think the form can have. If they can find examples where "x times larger than" means "x+1 times as big as" then I could accept there is a possibility of confusion.





Andygc said:


> As I said, those that think it's confusing don't use it, those that don't think it's confusing do use it, so it's not confusing.


Andy, you've shown strong evidence that "X times more than B" is used to mean "X times B"; and you've commented on the lack of examples of it meaning, in effect, "X times B more than B". OK. But you conclude from that that it's not confusing. For me, that's a non sequitur.

There are several ways that are often used to express A = X.B. Let's take X=3:
- A is 3 times B.
- A is 3 times as much as B.
- A is 3 times the size* of B. [*or other appropriate expression of measure]
- A is 3 times more than B.
- A is 200% more than B. [I'd be very surprised to hear anyone say 300% more.]

You say yourself that "those that think it's confusing don't use it" ["times more than"]. That's because they're using one of the other forms. But you haven't researched the frequency of those other forms, so "those that think it's confusing" are missing from your research. You don't have to find examples where "x times larger than" means "x+1 times as big as" in order to accept the possibility of confusion. By your own argument, some users of the other forms do find  "X times larger/bigger/more than" confusing.

And why do those people find it confusing? After all, if they did the historical research, and if they believed that usage is all, they might be convinced that the idiom is unambiguous. But they haven't done the research. They simply look at the meaning of the words "bigger than" or "more than", which in every other context don't mean the same as "as big as" or "as much as".

But so far we're talking only about _non-users_ of the idiom _thinking_ it's confusing; Is there any evidence that others actually _are_ confused by it? Yes, there is. You only have to look at the numerous questions about this (including plenty from native speakers) in forums and on other language and grammar sites to see that there _is_ confusion. So you can rightly defend the use of the "times more than" idiom (meaning "times as much as") as being common usage, but I don't see how that can be extrapolated to conclude that the idiom is never confusing.

Ws
_[Edit: Added words in para 3]_​


----------



## Andygc

Ws. My comment about confusers avoiding it was a bit tongue in cheek.

In every other discussion here about the meaning of idioms we refer to dictionaries and corpora to demonstrate meaning. I fail to understand why this question should be treated any differently. The corpora provide a clear demonstration that the structure is used with only one meaning and that meaning appears to have been in continuous use for at least 4 centuries. If a learner asks about the meaning of "times more than" the correct answer is not "it's confusing". The correct answer is "if you see this used, it means 'times as much as'". You and others may wish to advise learners not to use it, but my advice would be "use it if you like, but remember that it means the same as 'times as much as'".


----------



## Wordsmyth

Andygc said:


> "if you see this used, it means 'times as much as'"


Yes, that's a good warning to give to a learner who might _see it used_.

As for advice about _using it_, mine (based on hard evidence) would be:
- You can use "times more than" if you like. Most people will understand it as "times as much as". Some people will be unsure. Some people will understand it but be irritated by it.
- Or you can use "times as much as", which everyone will accept and understand.
Take your pick!

Ws


----------



## Andygc

Fair enough, although why anybody should be irritated beats me. 

But surely you mean You pays your money, you takes your choice/chance?


----------



## Wordsmyth

Andygc said:


> But surely you mean You pays your money, you takes your choice/chance?


----------



## verastar

Does anyone ever hear/use the sentence:
A is 50% longer than B?
If it is commonly used, then if B is 1m long, I think no one will reckon A is 0.5m, right?
Use the same logic, if A is 3 times longer than B, then A should be 4m.


----------



## Andygc

You don't appear to have read much of the thread.
Here's a very quick summary.
There is an idiomatic expression "Thing A is x times bigger/longer/wider/(etc) than Thing B".
It is used in two ways.
1. "Thing A is 100 times bigger than Thing B." Where 100 represents a large number.
2. "Thing A is 3 times bigger than Thing B." Where 3 represents a small number, perhaps as large as 15 or 20.
In 1. the expression means "A is about 100 times the size of B."
In 2. the expression means "A is 3 times the size of B."
Those are the meanings discoverable from an extensive search of English literature going back, thanks to Google, to the 18th century. Some people try to apply what they consider to be mathematical logic to 2. and claim that it means "A is 4 times the size of B." It doesn't. That's what they think it should mean, but they are unable to find a single example of that usage in any published English text.


Wordsmyth said:


> As for advice about _using it_, mine (based on hard evidence) would be:
> - You can use "times more than" if you like. Most people will understand it as "times as much as". Some people will be unsure. Some people will understand it but be irritated by it.
> - Or you can use "times as much as", which everyone will accept and understand.
> Take your pick!



End of summary

My opinion
Trying to apply logic to idiom is futile. Trying to apply a logic based on percentages to an expression involving multiplication is meaningless.

I am aware that other English forums have tied themselves up over this question, quoting this text





> The farmers of those alienated duties plundered the people of four times more than their demand amounted to ; and when at length the general depredation obliged Henry IV, to give the intire administration of the finances to the duke de Sully, this able and upright minister found that in the year 1596, they raised about a hundred and fifty millions of livres on the people, to bring about thirty into the Exchequer.


 An Essay on Universal History, the Manners, and Spirit of Nations, a translation of a text by Voltaire. Those who think it means that four times more than the demand is an example of 5 x 30 =150 have not read the full text, don't understand the historical background or the topic being discussed, and fail to understand the difference between "plunder" and "their demand". I can see that the text may be difficult for many to understand, possibly even for some native English speakers.

Edit
PS, by "full text" I mean the English text surrounding the quotation, not Voltaire's French text.


----------



## chevrons2

My summary:
It has been accepted that "times more than" _can_ be understood by different people to mean different things, whereas there is no confusion over the meaning of "times as many as". Therefore it seems to me that, to avoid any confusion, it is better to use the latter.


----------



## Andygc

Thank you for that. I think you must mean "it may be misunderstood by some people to mean a different thing from its actual meaning". Because of that some people may prefer to avoid its use. I say "misunderstood" because it has never, as far as we seem able to establish, been used to mean anything other than the meaning I described. The answer to the question in post #1


kent78 said:


> Look at the following two sentences:
> The rope is three times longer than that one.
> The rope is three times as long as that one.
> Do the two sentences mean the same?


remains "yes". That is, whenever sentences of these structures have been used in written English, they have had the same meaning. So, although people may advise learners of English not to use "times more than", those learners should be advised that when they read or hear it, they should understand it to mean the same as "times as many as".


----------



## Barque

Andy, while I respect your right to your opinion, I'm not able to understand why you're not willing to accept that this is one of those things on which different people have different views. I think the large number of posts that oppose your view (and from native speakers) prove that. This is something like that other thread -  "You've got another think/thing coming".


----------



## chevrons2

Andygc said:


> Thank you for that. I think you must mean "it may be misunderstood by some people to mean a different thing from its actual meaning".......


You are welcome.
No. I mean what I said! 
It seems that what I said may be misunderstood by some people to mean a different thing from its actual meaning!

After posts 104 and 105, I actually believed that you had finally agreed with that position too but it seems that I misunderstood what you said to mean a different thing from its actual meaning.

"different from" or "different to"? (Please don't answer this! I understood what you meant!)


----------



## Andygc

Barque said:


> I'm not able to understand why you're not willing to accept that this is one of those things on which different people have different views.


Of course I'm willing to accept that different people have different views. I'm just pointing out that a form of words can have a meaning demonstrable by evidence from English literature, while at the same time be misunderstood by a proportion of the English-speaking population. 

If a learner asks "does this mean the same as that?" and all of the available evidence in the canon of published English over a period of three or four hundred years says "yes", then the learner needs to be told that is what it means. The learner doesn't need to be told that some people think it means something else, because that "something else" meaning has never been used in written English.

There may well be a wholly separate issue of whether the learner should actually use the structure in question. If people wish to advise learners not to use a particular construction because some people find it confusing then they are free to do so. I don't consider that advice necessary, but I have not said "don't give it."

What we don't need is any more posts repeating a flawed mathematical analysis of an idiomatic usage, which, being idiomatic, is not amenable to any form of logical analysis.

chevrons2, I accepted that Wordsmyth's point of view was fair enough, but that did not mean that I endorsed it, hence the reference to another thread.


----------



## Wordsmyth

.
Andy, I think you and I reached a sort of half-way compromise, so I won't go back over the same ground. But I have a few thoughts on your latest comments:



Andygc said:


> Those are the meanings discoverable from an extensive search of English literature going back, thanks to Google, to the 18th century.





Andygc said:


> I'm just pointing out that a form of words can have a meaning demonstrable by evidence from English literature, while at the same time be misunderstood by a proportion of the English-speaking population.


Doesn't that suggest that historical research isn't the only criterion for establishing meaning? If a proportion of the English-speaking population currently see another meaning (based on the words themselves), doesn't that make it an alternative meaning and not a misunderstanding? I'm put in mind of JulianStuart's forum signature: _Your meaning is not what you think it is, it is what your listener thinks it is_.



Andygc said:


> The learner doesn't need to be told that some people think it means something else, because that "something else" meaning has never been used in written English.


Or ... the learner _does_ need to be told that some people think it means something else, simply because some people _do_ think it means something else; (they must have forgotten to do three centuries' worth of historical research! Tut, tut!)



Andygc said:


> What we don't need is any more posts repeating a flawed mathematical analysis of an idiomatic usage, which, being idiomatic, is not amenable to any form of logical analysis.


The mathematical analysis _isn't_ flawed; mathematically, it's flawless. (Unless of course "flawed mathematical analysis" is an idiom, meaning "a mathematical analysis that I consider inappropriate" — but I'm not going to do a three-century historical review to find out.)

It seems to me that there's more than one kind of idiom.
- There's the kind that can only be an idiom, because the literal meaning of the words makes no sense: for example,_ "He's over the moon about his exam results"_. A listener who's unfamiliar with it won't necessarily understand, but won't assume it has anything to do with space travel!
- Then there's the kind that's only an idiom when it's used as one, which may be most of the time; but the expression may also be used literally: for example, _"pull out all the stops"_. Every example in the BNC shows it being used figuratively, but try telling an organist that that research proves it can't have its literal meaning!

I guess you see "times more than" as being in the first group. Others see it as being, at least potentially, in the second.

Ws


----------



## Andygc

I don't intend to argue, except the comment about mathematical analysis. Any analysis in this thread that tries to compare multiplication to percentages is flawed, both mathematically and logically. The only analysis that is not mathematically flawed is the one that argues that three times *bigger than x* = x + 3x. *


Wordsmyth said:


> Or ... the learner _does_ need to be told that some people think it means something else, simply because some people _do_ think it means something else;


You misunderstood me. In response to the question in the OP, the learner needs to be told what the phrase means *if he comes across it*, not what it doesn't mean.

The question of the alternative meaning arises when advising the learner on* which expression he should use*.

Thus, it was not helpful early in this thread to make statements that "it means x + 3x" because that would lead the learner to misunderstand text that he reads. It is an untrue statement - if a learner comes across the expression "three times greater than" it never means "x + 3x", but if he uses it he may cause some misunderstanding. I have been trying to separate these two points, but it seems that I have failed to get that message across.

* Finger trouble error corrected following Wordsmyth's post at #118


----------



## siares

Wordsmyth said:


> mathematically, it's flawless.


Can you explain the mathematical logic?
I don't see any at all:
I put all the numbers into brackets and left operators without.
I don't understand why these two expressions should be seen as equal:
_a) (A) is (3) times () longer than (B) 
b) (A) is (3) times (C) longer than (B). Where C = B, this means A = 4 times as long as B_
Written as equation:
a) (A) = (3) x + (B)
There are two operators , times (x) and more (+) and nothing in between them. So this isn't an equation at all, in my view, and I see no mathematical reason to conjure an extra B after the times (operator x), which would produce c)
c) (A) = (3)x(B) + (B)


----------



## JulianStuart

siares said:


> Can you explain the mathematical logic?
> I don't see any at all:
> I put all the numbers into brackets and left operators without.
> I don't understand why these two expressions should be seen as equal:
> _a) (A) is (3) times () longer than (B)
> b) (A) is (3) times (C) longer than (B). Where C = B, this means A = 4 times as long as B_
> Written as equation:
> a) (A) = (3) x + (B)
> There are two operators , times (x) and more (+) and nothing in between them. So this isn't an equation at all, in my view, and I see no mathematical reason to conjure an extra B after the times (operator x), which would produce c)
> c) (A) = (3)x(B) + (B)



It's not the outcome of equations that is in dispute, it is the_ conversion from words to equations w_here the discussion is. Some people feel that there must/should/could be an intended difference in that conversion when you have to decide between two *different* phrases ("as long as" and "longer than") when you have used the word "times".  The latter is familiar from the "three inches longer than" where an addition is always required, and they wonder why an addition is not required when "three times longer than"is used.  For them, "times as long as" is crystal clear, but "times longer than" sounds weird.  Personally I never use the structure "times {comparative adjective} than".


----------



## Wordsmyth

Andygc said:


> You misunderstood me. In response to the question in the OP, the learner needs to be told what the phrase means *if he comes across it*, not what it doesn't mean.
> 
> The question of the alternative meaning arises when advising the learner on* which expression he should use*.


Yes, I agree with that distinction (in fact I made it earlier), but I can't agree with "not what it doesn't mean". Very early in the thread two native speakers (in #2 and #7) said that they understood _three times longer than_ to mean the same thing as _four times as long as_. You're saying that's what it _doesn't_ mean. Those native speakers (and even _The Economist_) are saying that's what it _can_ (even probably _does_) mean, based on their understanding of the words.

Your definition of "meaning" is based on historical research of written English. My definition of "meaning" includes that criterion, but also includes the current evidence before my eyes: the fact that some people do interpret it differently, or at least accept an alternative definition. And there appear to be enough of them (and they appear to be neither unintelligent nor uneducated) that I don't think they can be considered as 'mistaken', but simply as people who haven't done the historical research, or who maybe don't consider that as the be all and end all.



Andygc said:


> Any analysis in this thread that tries to compare multiplication to percentages is flawed,


OK, I didn't realise you were referring to the 'percentage' comparison. The analysis that I meant was unflawed was the one that claimed that _'bigger than'_ doesn't equal _'as big as'_ (or mathematically: *>* is not the same as *=*), though I do take siares' point that "times more than" is harder to analyse mathematically.


Andygc said:


> The only analysis that is not mathematically flawed is the one that argues that three times as big = x + 3x.


Now I'm completely lost. I think we've all agreed that "Y is three times *as big as* X" means Y = 3X, so arguing that it's Y = X + 3X sounds very flawed to me.


siares said:


> There are two operators , times (x) and more (+) and nothing in between them.


I see what you're saying, siares, but even even mathematicians don't necessarily transpose verbal statements word for word into symbols. If they did, then the perfectly valid statement "7 is 3 more than 4" would be written "7 = 3 > 4", but it's not; it's written "7 = 4 + 3". Similarly "A is 3 times more than B" isn't written "A = 3 x > B". In fact, most mathematicians wouldn't say "A is 3 times more than B", because they'd recognise that it's mathematically unsound. They'd probably say "A is 3 times B", or "A is 3 times as big/long/much as B", avoiding any use of "more than".

I think the two different interpretations we're discussing here arise from two different meanings of "times". *It can mean "multiplied by" or "number of instances"*:

- If you take it as "multiplied by", then "X is three times more than Y" (X is 3 multiplied by more than Y ??) has no sensible literal meaning — except perhaps that X is 3 multiplied by some number greater than Y, which is unlikely to be intended. Then you're left only with Andy's interpretation; it's an idiom, meaning "X is three times Y" (X=3Y).

- But if you take it as "number of instances", then "X is three times more than Y" does have a literal meaning. Start with Y; increase it by three instances of itself and you get X. (X=4Y).
This isn't just imaginary. Mary and John play several rounds of Scrabble. Mary wins 5 rounds; John wins 4. It would be quite normal English usage to say that Mary has won once (one time) more than John has. Now if Mary wins 7 rounds and John wins 4, Mary has won three times more (on three occasions more) than John has; it doesn't mean Mary has won 12 rounds, because in this case "times" doesn't mean "multiplied by".

Admittedly that's not normally said in the context of length or size, but it's easy to see how "three times more than" *can* have its literal meaning (three instances more than), and therefore how some people will naturally read that identical phrase as having the same meaning in the context of other measures.

I wrote all that (in stages, with work- and meal-breaks) before JS posted this excellent summary:


JulianStuart said:


> It's not the outcome of equations that is in dispute, it is the_ conversion from words to equations w_here the discussion is. Some people feel that there must/should/could be an intended difference in that conversion when you have to decide between two *different* phrases ("as long as" and "longer than") when you have used the word "times". The latter is familiar from the "three inches longer than" where an addition is always required, and they wonder why an addition is not required when "three times longer than"is used. For them, "times as long as" is crystal clear, but "times longer than" sounds weird. Personally I never use the structure "times {comparative adjective} than".


 (and I never use that structure either.)

Ws


----------



## Andygc

Wordsmyth said:


> Now I'm completely lost


Sorry, a slip of the fingers . I meant "three times bigger than" and that it was the only version of the numerical arguments on that side that bore any resemblance to a valid mathematical explanation.*

For a learner coming across an expression, "meaning" is what the writer means, not what somebody misunderstands the writer to mean. It's clear that when somebody writes "B is three times more than A" they mean B=3xA. If they think otherwise, they don't write it. Hence tell a learner that's what it means. By all means tell the learner not to use it themselves because some people have a different understanding, but at least make sure they know the intended meaning of what they read. That's all.

* Previous post corrected.


----------



## Wordsmyth

OK.


----------



## siares

Thanks Wordsmyth. My question was motivated by the feeling I got from chevron's 78 and your mention of logic, that 'times more than Y' is a perfectly valid, good and standard optional way for expressing 4 times Y. Now I see that it wasn't that clear-cut-ly meant.


Wordsmyth said:


> ....even mathematicians don't necessarily transpose verbal statements word for word into symbols. If they did, then the perfectly valid statement "7 is 3 more than 4" would be written "7 = 3 > 4"...


Small point, equation and inequation are statements and each needs a verb. There are one equation and one inequation combined in 7 = 3 > 4. The representation of this nice gibberish would be "7 is 3 is more than 4".


Wordsmyth said:


> Start with Y; increase it by three instances of itself and you get X. (X=4Y)....Mary wins 7 rounds and John wins 4, Mary has won three times more (on three occasions more) than John has.....


Your example 'is' and 'won' are not easily incomparable. One can be equaled to the equal sign (=), the other one cannot.
Interesting thing about it, the verb 'won' provides units for the 'instances': 1win. John wins (4 wins) were increased by three instances of  -1win-.
This might get as 16t more silly when we mathematically analyse a statement about who performed more times on stage:
Sara danced three times more than John sang.


----------



## Wordsmyth

siares said:


> that 'times more than Y' is a perfectly valid, good and standard optional way for expressing 4 times Y. Now I see that it wasn't that clear-cut-ly meant.


Indeed it wasn't that clear-cut-ly meant (what a delightfully innovative word). In my view, the perfectly valid, good and standard (and logical, and unambiguous) ways of expressing 4 times Y are _"4 times Y", "4 times as much as Y" _[or _as many/big/long/_etc]_, 4 times the size* of Y"_ [*or other appropriate expression of measure] — and not a single one has "more than" in it.



siares said:


> Small point, equation and inequation are statements and each needs a verb. There are one equation and one inequation combined in 7 = 3 > 4. The representation of this nice gibberish would be "7 is 3 is more than 4".


Accepted. So you see what gibberish you can get when you try to do something that people don't do. I'd probably introduce some syntactic inaccuracies if I tried to translate a Beatles song into Latin. But as I said, it _isn't_ written that way.


siares said:


> Your example 'is' and 'won' are not easily incomparable. One can be equaled to the equal sign (=), the other one cannot.


But I wasn't trying to compare them. I was just establishing that "three times more than" can have a literal meaning (and is actually used that way). Thereafter, it's easy to see how some people can read that over (not conduct a linguistic analysis, just instinctively read it over) to the case where "times" means "multiplied by".

In fact, mathematical analysis can't justify that "X is three times more than Y" means "X=3Y", nor can it justify that it means "X=4Y". So, faced with the expression, a person might think:
- (a) It doesn't mean what it appears to say, but I know that some people use it (some would even say misuse it) to mean X=3Y, so that's probably what it means.
- (b) In "X won _[or other dynamic verb]_ three times more than Y", "three times more than" refers to _adding_ 3 times. So in "X is three times more than Y", the same principle should apply.
.......(See also JulianStuart's comment about the parallel with "three inches longer than".)​
I'm not saying that people consciously think it through that way, but over time, and for whatever reasons, there are those who form an opinion that reflects something like (a), and others (including some native speakers in this thread and elsewhere) who form an opinion that reflects something like (b).

I'm not a supporter of that phrase meaning either X=3Y or X=4Y. I'm just not a supporter of that phrase at all.

Ws


----------



## Wordsmyth

< Response to deleted post removed. Cagey, moderator. >


Wordsmyth said:


> So, faced with the expression, a person *might think*:
> _[...]_
> - (b) In "X won _[or other dynamic verb]_ three times more than Y", "three times more than" refers to _adding_ 3 times.


That a person *might think* that, based on usage such as "Mary has won three times more (on three occasions more) than John has" seems incontestable to me — especially as you also found examples of that usage.

I'm not trying to make a hard-and-fast case for "X is three times more than Y" meaning X = Y + 3Y. I was just suggesting (as JulianS did) that people who do interpret it that way may do so because of an instinctive read-over from the usage where it _does_ involve adding 3 units, and not multiplying by 3.



Andygc said:


> I don't think "X won three times more than Y" ever means (X wins) = (Y wins) x 4.


I don't think so either. It means either:
• .(X wins) = (Y wins) + (3 wins) — [straightforward meaning, where "three times more than" means "on three occasions more than"], or ...
• .(X wins) = (Y wins) x 3 —.......... [idiom, where "three times more than" means "three times as many as"]

That just encourages me even more to avoid "times more than". To avoid any confusion over "more than" _and_ over "times", I'd go for unambiguous forms such as:
• .X won three more games than Y.
• .X won three times as many games as Y.

Ws


----------



## Einstein

Wordsmyth said:


> In fact, most mathematicians wouldn't say "A is 3 times more than B", because they'd recognise that it's mathematically unsound. They'd probably say "A is 3 times B", or "A is 3 times as big/long/much as B", avoiding any use of "more than".


I tried to make this point in earlier posts. We can survive "in the street" with imprecise forms, but when we enter into a technical, scientific or legal context where we are seeking absolute precision, we need to use unambiguous forms.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Einstein said:


> I tried to make this point in earlier posts.


You did indeed.


----------



## siares

e; to Ws; Oh, I got your point belatedly. I think I see now that beside
a) 'X is NumberUnit longer/more/etc. than Y' (Rope is 3cm longer than) expression which denotes addition, there is also
b) 'X DynamicVerb NumbertimesNoUnit more than Y' (X happened on three more occasions than Y) which also denotes addition, and those both influence 'hearing addition' in the contested
c) 'X is NumbertimesNoUnit more than Y.



Wordsmyth said:


> (b) In "X won _[or other dynamic verb]_ three times more than Y", "three times more than" refers to _adding_ 3 times.


I thought about this, and thought of different categories of dynamic verbs. I'll call them finished/unfinished verbs:
b) 'X DynamicVerb NumbertimesNoUnit more than Y'
b1) finished verb = seems like a clear addition of instances of verb
_Mary won the lottery three times more than Jon did. Mary wrote us a letter three times more than John did._
b2) unfinished verb = to me addition here is not clear
I read these as multiplication:
_b2i) Mary won three times more than John did. Mary wrote three times more than Jon did._
I read these as addition:
_b2ii) Mary won three more times than John did. Mary wrote three more times than Jon did.
_
I would be interested whether speakers who use this form (times more than) distinguish between
number times more than and
number more times than?

Thank you.
(and thanks, Julian, for the summary)


----------



## PaulQ

_Mary won three more times than John did. / Mary wrote three more times than Jon did. 
Mary won three times more often than John did. / Mary wrote three  times more often than Jon did._

_Mary won the lottery last year and then she won three more times. _ -> <number> more times (n.) = on <number> further occasions.


----------



## JulianStuart

PaulQ said:


> _Mary won three more times than John did. / Mary wrote three more times than Jon did.
> Mary won three times more often than John did. / Mary wrote three  times more often than Jon did._
> 
> _Mary won the lottery last year and then she won three more times. _ -> <number> more times (n.) = on <number> further occasions.


Paul, I think the first line, where you added the , was intended (in#118) to distinguish between times meaning _multiplied by_ and _occasions_.  It would be true is Mary won ten times and John won seven times.


----------



## PaulQ

Ah... OK Then it follows "<number> more times (n.) = on <number> further occasions", whereas in the second line times is a verb. (all of which need not have been said...

I have always thought that <number> times (v.) ... is a sort of dumbed down expression and is never meant to be calculated - merely to give a ballpark figure.


----------



## Wordsmyth

PaulQ said:


> whereas in the second line *times *is a verb.


A verb? Which 'second line' is that, Paul?

Ws


----------



## PaulQ

I don't know ...  It was clear when I wrote it...


----------



## panjandrum

_[[ Moderator note.  I know this topic is fun to discuss, but that's all it is.  It should be clear to all that there is not going to be agreement.  I therefore propose to close the thread after post #140, plus or minus a random variable that I have chosen and and will keep to myself for now.  Posts with higher numbers will be deleted, and the thread closed. ]]_


----------



## panjandrum

For your information, analysis of the opinions expressed in this thread shows:

8 for _longer than_ *is not* the same as _as long as_
9 for they _longer than_ *is* the same as _as long as_
5 for ambiguous but often used as the same
7 for ambiguous, often used as the same, best avoid _longer than
_
Despite a lot of discussion, no opinions have been changed.


----------

