David Williams (asker) Nov 4, 2009:

OK Thanks!

British Diana Nov 4, 2009:

@David I take your point! It was just the niggling thought I had that there might actually be several probes of the smallest size in existence and your manufacturer might be the first to present one.
O.K. a bit far-fetched, the eight "agrees" have convinced me...

David Williams (asker) Nov 4, 2009:

The source, taken literally, would imply that there had never been a smallest probe. That would then enable the manufacturer to be the first ever to make "the smallest one". However, this is completely illogical. The new probe is NOW the smallest probe, but before it was made, what is now the second smallest version WAS the smallest (unless they were all absolutely identical in size). Unless it is the world's first probe of its kind, it simply can't be the world's first smallest one.
It is a bit like saying that the world no longer has an oldest man when "the world's oldest man" has died. Or, to take another example, it's akin to saying that a certain car or computer chip manufacturer is "the first manufacturer ever to make the fastest car (or chip) in the world", as if there had never been a fastest one before. OK, it may be faster than anything that the world has seen before, but before it was made there was already a fastest one, even though that may now have been completely put in the shade by the new one.

British Diana Nov 4, 2009:

Too much of a good thing? Is everybody absolutely sure that the two superlatives are not actually intentional? Emphasis on the fact that they are the first manufacturer to present such a tiny probe PLUS the fact that it is the smallest probe currently available.
That's what was behind my suggestion, trying to be faithful to the source.