While it did use the greater-than symbol, it was arranged unconventionally. The way it’s written is “500 is greater than steps per day,” meaning don’t walk too much, which fits with the rest of the author’s theme.
Sure, I might have worded myself a bit clumsily. I meant using them in a conversational way. They’re trying to say “less than 500 steps,” which is very different from “500 is larger than steps per day” in tone.
My point was just that in normal speech and writing you would say “less than 500”, which would be written “< 500” if you insisted on using the mathematical sign.
More than, 500 steps a day!? What do you think I am–active?
While it did use the greater-than symbol, it was arranged unconventionally. The way it’s written is “500 is greater than steps per day,” meaning don’t walk too much, which fits with the rest of the author’s theme.
That’s not how that works, though… It is 100 % what they meant, but not at all how you use greater than/less than signs in text.
You do…?
Let n be the number of steps
500 > n >= 0
For example
Sure, I might have worded myself a bit clumsily. I meant using them in a conversational way. They’re trying to say “less than 500 steps,” which is very different from “500 is larger than steps per day” in tone.
My point was just that in normal speech and writing you would say “less than 500”, which would be written “< 500” if you insisted on using the mathematical sign.
No. Steps/day is the unit. They used the symbol incorrectly