Stamets@lemmy.world to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 2 days agoIt never stopslemmy.worldimagemessage-square87linkfedilinkarrow-up1736arrow-down16
arrow-up1730arrow-down1imageIt never stopslemmy.worldStamets@lemmy.world to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works · 2 days agomessage-square87linkfedilink
minus-squareSaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up21arrow-down1·1 day agobig > 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.
minus-squareTrackinDaKraken@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-221 hours agoYES! Read left to right, they make perfect sense: Less than is < Greater than is > They all make visual sense: = ≠ ± <
minus-squaredrunkpostdisaster@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up6·1 day agoThat was not how it was taught to my developing elementary brain.
minus-squareHonytawk@feddit.nllinkfedilinkarrow-up6·1 day agoSure, 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?
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.
YES!
Read left to right, they make perfect sense:
Less than is <
Greater than is >
They all make visual sense:
=
≠
±
<
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?