big > small
as in the symbol is big and open on one side and small and closed on the other. It could not possibly be more literal than that.
People Twitter
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
That was not how it was taught to my developing elementary brain.
Sure, but if you regularly use it, wouldn't you think more about the symbol?
And wouldn't it make more sense to an adult brain to see one side wider and one side smaller and continue the line in order to understand which size is bigger?
YES!
Read left to right, they make perfect sense:
Less than is <
Greater than is >
They all make visual sense:
=
≠
±
<
Why not just remember that the bigger side of the symbol points to the bigger number?
But the pointy end should be pointing. This phrasing could get confusing.
How childish!
It's obviously Pac-Man.
When I taught math to young students I used alligators.......Muh haa/0/
****I'm leaving the random characters that have been added to my evil laugh. They were added by Zip the orange 3 month old terror kitten
in other words:
I used to even draw in the teeth.
I think I was fifteen when my maths teacher took me aside and told me my less-than symbol didn't need a plover bird.
Do they teach this in Primary School now? I’d have thought it was still addition, subtraction, timetables, long division etc; I first encountered these symbols learning BASIC at home.
I started elementary school in 1999, yes absolutely.
I saw the angles and assumed this was a joke about Dirac notation, which I'm still convinced is a massive joke to get mathematical physicists seriously talking about bras and ket in the staff room.
I feel this deeply as a 30 year old that has to repeat in my head "Never Eat Soggy Waffles" every time I use a cardinal direction
I just use both with a footnote that reads "one of these symbols always lies, one tells the truth. Determining which is which left as an exercise for the reader"
I know someone who did their entire thesis purposely without using effect/affect, because they didn't know the difference. Instead used "impact" and other similar words.
Affect is an action and effect just exists is how I always remembered it.
that's a lot better than my method of remembering that effect is not a verb
I've always found it interesting that many people have a hard time remembering this. I feel like it's one of those self-describing symbols.
When I was first learning these symbols in kindergarten, I understood how to use them, but I couldn't read them right. If I saw 2 < 3 and had to say what it was out loud, I'd say "3 is greater than 2." I learned the proper way quickly though with some help from my teach though. No idea why that memory stuck with me.
I still think "Pervert Naruto" for PV=nRT
I am also an idiot who needs mnemonics to remember incredibly basic stuff. In a similar vein to OOP, I did a PhD in chemistry with substantial involvement with chiral structures and still don't really know left from right... but I never understood this one. Smaller number on the small side, bigger number on the big side always seemed really intuitive.
Also in a theoretical physics context I think of those symbols as Dirac notation more often than inequalities, but then I'm not a physicist.
I always think that less than 3 makes a heart <3
And "three larger than" makes a funny-looking face or a sexy bikini. 3>
I have to read random passwords to people, nobody knows which is the greater (>) and less (<) than symbol.
Because they are all just knowing it points to the bigger number. >100 and 100< are interchangeable.
When I encounter this, I have to imagine a context as I would read it. eg. X > Y as X is greater than Y. Because <> are just angle brackets to me.