[luke warm]

just imagine all the changes this will result in... true, it isn't exactly a new metal, just a new way of utilizing it

[S2000magic]

I do wish that authors of scientific articles such as this - who should know better - would refrain from using phrases like "1,000 times thinner than a human hair" when they mean "1/1,000 as thick as a human hair". If it were 1,000 times thinner, it would be -999 times as thin. That's probably thinner than the author imagined.

Apart from that, the stuff looks really interesting. I saw another article on it through a link on a magicians' forum.

[barmar]

What's your logic for saying "1,000 times thinner" literally means "-999 times as thin"? Do you really think anyone could possibly misinterpret that description in the way you imagine? I can't even figure out what "-999 times as thin" means -- there's no such thing as negative thickness or thinness.

Has anyone ever used the expression "N times thinner" in any way other than to mean "1/N times as thick"? That's simply what the phrase means.

[S2000magic]

barmar, on 2011-November-18, 21:27, said:

What's your logic for saying "1,000 times thinner" literally means "-999 times as thin"? Do you really think anyone could possibly misinterpret that description in the way you imagine? I can't even figure out what "-999 times as thin" means -- there's no such thing as negative thickness or thinness.

Has anyone ever used the expression "N times thinner" in any way other than to mean "1/N times as thick"? That's simply what the phrase means.

So, if they'd said it's 50% thinner, would that mean that it's twice as thick (1 / 50% = 2)?

If not, then you're saying that "twice as thin" means the same thing as "50% thinner". I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.

You're correct: there's no such thing as negative thickness. That was precisely my point.

[BunnyGo]

S2000magic, on 2011-November-18, 17:33, said:

I do wish that authors of scientific articles such as this - who should know better - would refrain from using phrases like "1,000 times thinner than a human hair" when they mean "1/1,000 as thick as a human hair". If it were 1,000 times thinner, it would be -999 times as thin. That's probably thinner than the author imagined.

Apart from that, the stuff looks really interesting. I saw another article on it through a link on a magicians' forum.

That was a quote from the lead author of the paper. While I agree with you, it is still the normal colloquial usage.

[BunnyGo]

luke warm, on 2011-November-18, 16:49, said:

just imagine all the changes this will result in... true, it isn't exactly a new metal, just a new way of utilizing it

Cool! Maybe a space elevator can be made from these?

[Mbodell]

S2000magic, on 2011-November-18, 23:48, said:

If not, then you're saying that "twice as thin" means the same thing as "50% thinner". I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.

It does too make sense. The % changes the meaning significantly. His income is twice mine! His income is 100% more than mine! His income is 200% mine! All of those mean the same thing. A cm is 100 times smaller than 1 m. A cm is 1% of 1 m. It works with smaller too.

This construction was good enough for Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle and Jonathan Swift and this researcher and his peer reviewers/editors. Therefore I think it is good enough for me and barmar and most other English speakers (See Eugene Volokh for more discussion of the issue).

[S2000magic]

Mbodell, on 2011-November-19, 04:34, said:

It does too make sense. The % changes the meaning significantly. His income is twice mine! His income is 200% mine! All of those mean the same thing.

Yes, your examples make sense, because 200% = twice.

Fifty percent smaller shouldn't mean the same thing as 2 times smaller because 50% ≠ 2 times.

It isn't the % sign that's changing the meaning; it's the meaning of the numbers that's changing the meaning.

[Gerben42]

Hmm it's a bit like micromail Dwarfs would love this!

Quote

Cool! Maybe a space elevator can be made from these?

Not really, for that you need material with large tensile strength. Nanotubes would work though