>>511124201>>511126619Not the Indian in the OP shittershitshot post btw but
>a 1000x relative reduction makes sense, 1000% reduction doesn't.What is 100% reduction of $2? 0? which would mean that 1000% reduction would be "-18$". or $2 (as in just divding by the percentage.)? This would make some sense but for $2->$0.2 but it makes phrases like "100% decrease" absolutely meaningless.
If you're doing it sort of as an inverse of scaling percentages like
>100% increase in $2 is $4.>Thus a 100% decrease in $2 would be $1, which is a pandora's box of inconsistency.Percentage is not meant to be applied like that. The colloquial way we describe reduction through percentages is either:
>The price decreased by 20% - Aka $2 became $1.6Or
>The price deflated to 80% - aka $2 became $1.6.And this is very commonly understood. So much so that even an ESL like me understands it.