"Size" is not only a metric of physical dimension.
OP said "biggest", and meant "largest valuation". This happens to be incorrect -- nVidia was never the highest-valued public company -- but they were the second-largest, and came very close to first.
If you did not know what OP meant immediately from awareness of business news, you still should have considered "valuation" as one of the obvious possibilities. If you did not, then you might be lacking adequate context for this conversation, and might be better served by asking questions instead of demonstrating your confusion via misplaced pedantry.
Size is not a metric. You can measure size with a metric and you can measure value with another metric. Measuring both the same way only leads to nonsense. I think we're getting to the bottom of the confusion now.
> misplaced pedantry
Pedantry is the easiest way of dismantling comments that try to turn nonsense into an argument by being intentionally vague. Should you argue directly against vague statements, the speaker can retroactively make them mean whatever they want to. You'll be chasing moving goalposts. Employ pedantry until they well and truly nail themselves down, and then explain why whatever is left is nonsense. Worked like a charm.
Also, to get ahead of any further personal attacks, this pedantry absolutely is fun to me. I wouldn't be here otherwise.
You are simply wrong. Being condescending and wrong is a fatal mix.
Size is a unitless dimension. A category of metrics, if you must. OP's word of "bigger" can be applied to population, area, weight, importance, memorability, and yes, valuation.
Can be, and frequently is, among humans. Zero humans are confused.
> Pedantry is the easiest way of
... demonstrating that you're a jerk. Nothing else.
> this pedantry absolutely is fun to me
Got it. My mistake for assuming good faith.
> I wouldn't be here otherwise
That's the most disappointing thing I've read in a while.
> Size is a unitless dimension. A category of metrics, if you must.
Just make size a category of dimensions and I'd underwrite that. It certainly doesn't refer to a single dimension.
Mathematically valuation would absolutely be a size/magnitude, but we're clearly not speaking in mathematical terms, given how the terminology is being abused. Mathematically plenty of things that are a magnitude/size do not constitute a metric space, and the singular would be wrong anyways.
I'm taking metric to mean "standard of measurement", which is why size is still not a metric. Saying "size is a category of metrics" would be getting close enough I suppose, but really we're talking about the actual dimensions.
Now that we've got that out of the way, I'm still firmly grouping valuation as a measurement of value, and not a measurement of size. I'm also standing by the assertion that not having these two be disjoint sets only leads to confusion and nonsense.
> OP's word of "bigger" can be applied to population, area, weight, importance, memorability, and yes, valuation.
Nice try. They applied it to "company". You can do that, but now we're not talking about a company's value. We have the adjective valuable for that.
OP said "biggest", and meant "largest valuation". This happens to be incorrect -- nVidia was never the highest-valued public company -- but they were the second-largest, and came very close to first.
If you did not know what OP meant immediately from awareness of business news, you still should have considered "valuation" as one of the obvious possibilities. If you did not, then you might be lacking adequate context for this conversation, and might be better served by asking questions instead of demonstrating your confusion via misplaced pedantry.