If something can be “twice as small” or “one-thousand times as small”—and “journalists” tell us these things all the time—why can’t something be “infinitely small”?
Or, “ten times quieter” or “three times less filling” or...
Oh, I did not intend to say that “Infinitely small” is not plausible. All I said was that he left out “Finitely small”. ;-)
It's the expression "ten times smaller" that makes me bang my head against the desk. Are they being deliberately ambiguous or really that ignorant?
Because, to be "infinitely small" means EXACTLY this: no matter how small it is, there is something smaller. We have a name for that: it is zero. A thing which is smaller than all other things has no existence.