What is the straight dope on this sentence construction. To me, it doesn’t make mathematical sense at all, but is it grammatically correct?
I would tend to say “Product X is one-third the cost of Product Y”; that is what I assume the other person means when they say “Product X costs three times less than Product Y.”
Idioms do not have to make sense, either intrinsically or grammatically.
This particular idiom makes no intrinsic sense, true. It probably emerges from a reversal of “Product Y costs three times more than Product X.” You would agree that is a valid grammatical construction. Turning it around to read “Product X costs three times less than Product Y.” is equally grammatical.
I hate the phrase myself, but it’s everywhere, including the work of professionals. That means it will be something we have to live with. People are irrationally scared of fractions. Until they learn to transcend that fear, the rational course would be to leave it out of our own good writing, otherwise we’re just catering to the lowest common denominator.
I agree. Much better to say that X costs 1/3 of Y, but that’s life (and language) and I also see it all the time.
I don’t think it’s about fractions. Here’s the scene
Ad guy #1 - we should add a line about how our product costs less
Ad guy #2 - good idea, costing less is a great selling point, we have to make sure people know we cost less. How much less do we cost?
Finance Cretin - we cost one third of the competitor
Ad guys - What happened to the most important word in the entire concept?!?!?! Use the word less, and make it sound all financey.
Finance Cretin - We cost 3 times less than the competitor (dies a little)
Ad guys - Whew, that was a close one!
It’s only a problem if it’s ambiguous. I can’t think of any interpretation other than “one third the price”, so there’s no ambiguity.
There is a baseline price which is not being specified in the claim.
Product Y costs less than this baseline price by $P.pp (1 times less).
Product X costs less than the baseline price by 4($P.pp) (3 + 1 times less).
Cheesesteak’s Ad guys can Die In A Fire before I will purchase their client’s product.
Grrrr. :mad:
It is neither equally grammatical, nor equally mathematically valid. If [shudder] three times LESS means one third the price, then the converse is TWO times (not three times) MORE (or three times AS MUCH).
You may be onto something. Lets infiltrate the advertising world and substitute “3X less” with irrational numbers (“πX less”, “eX less”, “\sqrt{12}X less,” etc.).
Within a generation, the unwashed masses will be begging us for fractions.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
never mind
How exactly is it not grammatically valid? Grammar has absolutely nothing to do with the sense of the words. “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” is completely grammatical.
The construction is mathematically valid, BTW, because it is defined that way. 3 times less = 1/3; 5 times less = 1/5; … As long as it is used consistently, anything can have any definition even if it contradicts some usage outside the system. That’s pretty much the definition of an idiom, in fact.
If people are bad enough at math not to realize the problem with that construction, they certainly aren’t going to know when it’s ambiguous vs. not. The construction is problematic even without ambiguity because it teaches people that it’s acceptable. I’ve seen plenty of cases of “50% less” that actually meant 33% less.
Just as bad is “you get two times more stuff”. Do you get triple the amount or double?
I see what you did there. 
Engineer, walking past and overhearing converstion - Hey, what’s wrong with “two thirds less”?
All the others: Brilliant!
This.
The problem IMHO - is that it leads one to think the person making the statement is capable of creating a situation where it is ambiguous (50 vs 33 for example).
You don’t usually find people that understand math well phrasing things this way. It leads me to trust what they are saying less - as it sort of says “hey watch out how this guy uses numbers in the future.”
Perhaps a bad analogy - but it would have a similar effect on me as someon showing a bar graph with one bar twice as large as the second - however with the axis labeled at something other than zero. Although I can easily see what this really means - it puts me on notice that the person is tricky when it comes to stats/figures/graphs.
Double, of course. Do you have an example of someone thinking otherwise?
Three times less than Product Y? So you’ll give me Product X and twice whatever Product Y costs for promotional reasons?
COOL!
Oh, so I have to sit through a one hour presentation on vacation time shares in exchange for a flimsy knife and a half dollar? Never mind.
This is not nearly as infuriating as claims to the effect that “our ice cream is 97% Fat Free!” No, sorry, the fat part is not divisible from your ice cream, it is three percent fat. Say that or STFU.
[quote=“Measure_for_Measure, post:16, topic:669239”]
Three times less than Product Y? So you’ll give me Product X and twice whatever Product Y costs for promotional reasons?
COOL!
Oh, so I have to sit through a one hour presentation on vacation time shares in exchange for a flimsy knife and a half dollar? Never mind.[/QU
That is what it means to me.
Triple is the right answer. If you wanted double, you would say “two times as much” or “100% more”, not “two times more”. But I see it both ways.
I’ll withdraw the cavil, then. However, since it is based on mathematical gibberish, I stick to my decree that it is syntactical gibberish. Grammatically valid syntactical gibberish. (again: Grrr. :mad:)
I have to draw the line here. If they wish to do business within this space-time continuum, they will not introduce unlabelled nonstandard mathematical systems. If they insist upon introducing such systems, they can go to Hell (which is not in this space-time continuum).
I have Spoken.