There are the words "a multiple of" in the parent post, just before the words "energy and maintenance costs"

Which means that ICE Vehicle energy and maintenance costs are a multiple of (i.e. several times that of) EV energy and maintenance costs.

And so EV energy and maintenance costs are a fraction of the ICE energy and maintenance costs.

You can debate this assertion if you like, but first you have to read it successfully.

▲

2 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

neya 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> but first you have to read it successfully.

1/2 * x

What do you think 1/2 here is? Stick to doom.

	▲	SideburnsOfDoom 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> What do you think 1/2 here is? I think it's a ratio between two integers. If you have a point to make here, you also first have to write it successfully.

▲

defrost 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The multiplication factor can't be a third?

▲

SideburnsOfDoom 2 days ago | parent [-]

That's not how the phrase "x is a multiple of y" is typically used, so colloquiality speaking: no it can't be 1/3. That would be a submultiple

If your argument is about the actual running costs of EVS and ICE Vehicles: also no.

▲

defrost 2 days ago | parent [-]

So, it is in fact used that way sometimes then.

I have no argument, just an observation that for six decades I've always taken multiplier to possibly mean any positive, negative, or zero value, rational or irrational, etc.

	▲	SideburnsOfDoom 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> So, it is in fact used that way sometimes then. No, and that's the point of using a different word "submultiple". > I've always taken multiplier "a multiple of" is not the same thing as "multiplier". Or "submultiple" either. Different words have different meanings. So not relevant. > to possibly mean any positive, negative, or zero value, rational or irrational, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple multiple, noun: the product of a quantity by an integer. So no.