The first one is correct as others have said, but the second one is not ambiguous enough to confuse anyone nor weird enough for anyone to bat an eye at, you’re fine with either.
In this case, it’s not about what sounds good or personal opinion, there is a standard name for that number for a reason. If I go around calling 100 “one oh oh” or “tenty ten”, it’s clear what number I mean but I can’t honestly call it more correct, because there’s a standard English name for it.
To demonstrate a part of why it’s clearer that way, put these numbers in ascending numerical order: (e.g. 1, 2, 3, … )
one point three
one point twenty-nine
one point thirty
one point thirty-one
one point three-thousand-and-fifty-two
Hopefully this clarifies that we’re not actually dealing with a “thirty-two” when we’re talking about 1.32 (edit: that said, when we’re talking about version numbers, e.g. Linux kernel 4.20, which is greater than Linux kernel 4.9, then we’d say “four point twenty”)
The first one is correct as others have said, but the second one is not ambiguous enough to confuse anyone nor weird enough for anyone to bat an eye at, you’re fine with either.
I’d say the second one is more correct, it sounds so weird pronouncing the digits singularly
In this case, it’s not about what sounds good or personal opinion, there is a standard name for that number for a reason. If I go around calling 100 “one oh oh” or “tenty ten”, it’s clear what number I mean but I can’t honestly call it more correct, because there’s a standard English name for it.
To demonstrate a part of why it’s clearer that way, put these numbers in ascending numerical order: (e.g. 1, 2, 3, … )
Hopefully this clarifies that we’re not actually dealing with a “thirty-two” when we’re talking about 1.32 (edit: that said, when we’re talking about version numbers, e.g. Linux kernel 4.20, which is greater than Linux kernel 4.9, then we’d say “four point twenty”)