# How do I put a small question mark over the Greater than or equals to sign?

I have seen people put small question marks over greater than symbols in proofs, however, I'm having trouble doing it over "≥" symbols. Using \stackrel{?}{≥} returns an error:

 Command \> already defined.
Or name \end... illegal, see p.192 of the manual.

See the LaTeX manual or LaTeX Companion for explanation.
Type  H <return>  for immediate help.
...
l.175 \newcommand{\>}{\stackrel{?}{?}}
?


And using \overset{?}{≥} gives the wrong symbol:

How would we type "≥" in latex without returning a question mark?

• (1) Welcome, (2) please post a minimal example, just not an image of an error. You are being told you cannot define \<, so find another name for it. In general it is not a good idea to use so short macro names for your own personal macros. – daleif Oct 14 '16 at 14:21
• Try \newcommand\maybegeq{\stackrel{?}{\geq}}. With the amsmath package, \overset{?}{\geq} works as well. I don't think that you can use the greater-equal unicode character directly. – gernot Oct 14 '16 at 14:52
• @gernot I suggest you make that an answer – Andrew Swann Nov 4 '16 at 21:12

Use \geq instead of ≥ and define the command as

\newcommand\maybegeq{\stackrel{?}{\geq}}


or as

\usepackage{amsmath}
\newcommand\maybegeq{\overset{?}{\geq}}


Example:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
$x \stackrel{?}{\geq} y$

$x \overset{?}{\geq} y$
\end{document}


\stackrel and \overset differ in the way they are spaced. \stackrel{a}{b} is a relation no matter what b was (as rel in the macro name suggests), whereas \overset{a}{b} will be treated in the same way as b without \overset. If you want \overset{a}{b} to become a relation, you have to say so explicitly using \mathrel{\overset{a}{b}} or \overset{a}{\mathrel{b}}.

• I believe \overset is preferred to \stackrel (due to better spacing or something). – erik Nov 4 '16 at 23:00
• @erik It depends on what your aim is. I have added an explanation. Thanks for your comment. – gernot Nov 5 '16 at 11:45

Doing \newcommand{\>}{\stackrel{?}{≥}} obviously produces an error, because \> is an already defined command.

You could do

\renewcommand{\>}{\stackrel{?}{≥}}


but it wouldn't help much, because an input like

$a \> b$


would not print what you'd like to. Even if you load

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}


(assuming you're saving your file in UTF-8 encoding) wouldn't be sufficient.

You can use ≥ as a shorthand for \geq, by defining an action for the Unicode character ≥ (and ≤ as well).

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}

\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{newunicodechar}

\newunicodechar{≤}{\leq}
\newunicodechar{≥}{\geq}

\begin{document}

\begin{tabular}{cc}
\verb|\stackrel|    & \verb|\overset| \\
$a\stackrel{?}{≤}b$ & $a\overset{?}{≤}b$ \\
$a\stackrel{?}{≥}b$ & $a\overset{?}{≥}b$
\end{tabular}

\end{document}


I'd prefer \overset to \stackrel, because it's more general.

About redefining \> for this purpose, I wouldn't do it. You can rather do

\newcommand{\?}[1]{\overset{?}{#1}}


and input

$a \?{>} b$
$a \?{≥} b$
$a \?{<} b$
$a \?{≤} b$


which is, in my opinion, clearer.

• Is \newcommand{\?}{\overset{?}} in any way preferable? – gernot Nov 5 '16 at 11:33
• @gernot It is essentially equivalent, but less clear. You save a few nanoseconds every time \? is expanded. – egreg Nov 5 '16 at 11:38