It's not "three times less the performance", that would place it deep in the negative. It's "at approximately 1 third the performance" or "with 2/3rds less performance". If you gained $100,000 last year and gained 300% (3x) less this ear, you would have gained a $300,000 debt.
Actually, it would be correct to say "three times less the performance", it is not wrong. The English language is quite ambiguous, so it could have both meanings (1/3 or -3), but since one of the meanins doesn't make sense, the correct one is the only one left.
I will agree that it would be "better" to say 1/3rd, but it is not "incorrect".
No. It is not correct to say 'three times less" when comparing two things if one really means "one-third." For example, when comparing the number two to the number six, two is four less than six and three times that is twelve. So, how is two three times less than six?
This is upsetting news. I had no idea America didn't have the world's most powerful super computer at their disposal. In situations like this, there's only one thing to do: increase defense spending and invade another county!
Next report will be interesting with the new supercomputers that the US will be bringing online in 2018.
1. Summit - 200 petaflops (early 2018)
2. Sierra - 150 petaflops (mid-2018)
3. Aurora - 180 petaflops (late-2018)
Agentlozen - keep in mind this is only publicly known supercomputers and not classified supercomputers. If you somehow were able to add in all the classified super computers, I have zero doubt the U.S. would dominate the list (don't know if that's something to be sad about or proud of tbh), and the Taihu-light would be lucky to even make the list.
James Beecham is correct. English is not ambiguous. As a technical writer, I'm fussy about this sort of thing -- especially the way people fail to understand the difference between "more than" and "as large as".