Dear all,
I have no higher educational background in statistics or mathematics. I am almost embarrassed to come here ask for help, but it seems for me that either an elementary principle of inequality is wrong in a research paper or that I am lacking basic skills in Maths. I have tried to search online, but I could not find anything to address the issue.
I need to present an academic article, in which there is this table I am having trouble with. The problem is that the signs in the chained inequalities seem wrong for me. I am attaching a screenshot to this post with the said table (in the table "HC" stands for head circumference).
For example, how can "2 < HC > 3" be possible? Is it possible that in any given circumstances the signs in a chained inequality point to opposite directions? In my interpretation it is clear that what the authors mean is that HC is between 2 and 3, but that doesn't seem to be the correct notation. Furthermore, such notation is repeated several times in the table, seeming unlikely that it was an occasional mistake.
Thanks in advance.
I have no higher educational background in statistics or mathematics. I am almost embarrassed to come here ask for help, but it seems for me that either an elementary principle of inequality is wrong in a research paper or that I am lacking basic skills in Maths. I have tried to search online, but I could not find anything to address the issue.
I need to present an academic article, in which there is this table I am having trouble with. The problem is that the signs in the chained inequalities seem wrong for me. I am attaching a screenshot to this post with the said table (in the table "HC" stands for head circumference).
For example, how can "2 < HC > 3" be possible? Is it possible that in any given circumstances the signs in a chained inequality point to opposite directions? In my interpretation it is clear that what the authors mean is that HC is between 2 and 3, but that doesn't seem to be the correct notation. Furthermore, such notation is repeated several times in the table, seeming unlikely that it was an occasional mistake.
Thanks in advance.
Attachments

58.2 KB Views: 6