# Less-than OR Less-than-equal with one symbol

I want to write a less-than-equal sign with a brace around the equal sign. Something like this, but in "nice" (at the moment, it doesn't really look as expected):

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
$$a \overset{<}{(-)} b$$
\end{document}


That should mean something like "a is less-than-equal (less-than) b".

Is there a symbol for this or is it possible to create such a symbol?

Edit: To give an example where this is useful is something like this definition (to keep things short):

• If a is larger than (or equal to) b, we write: a >(=) b.

This is shorter than writing out both possiblies explicitly:

• If a is larger than b, we write: a > b.
• If a is larger than or equal to b, we write: a >= b.
• Why not just \mathrel{({\leq})}? It's not exactly clear what a is less-than-equal (less-than) b would mean, because one is included in the other.
– Werner
Nov 15 '18 at 20:51
• What is it useful for? < implies ≤. Nov 15 '18 at 20:53
• @Bernard I added an example. Nov 15 '18 at 21:20
• I still do not see why you don't want a simple \leq, which means exactly what's in your title. Nov 15 '18 at 21:27
• You can load package amssymb (i.e., \usepackage{amssymb}) and write a \leqslant b Nov 15 '18 at 21:32

It's not really difficult to do it:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}

\newcommand{\geqp}{%
\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\scriptscriptstyle($}}%
\geq
\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\scriptscriptstyle)$}}%
}

\begin{document}

If $a$ is larger than (or equal to) $b$, we write $a\geqp b$.

\end{document}


However you are assigning a symbol to the obscure concept of

being larger than (or equal to)

rather than explaining the usage of two symbols.

Don't do it: I'm ready to bet that your readers will not understand what you mean. Saving a few words at the expense of clarity is not worth the pain. Consider that you will be using the symbol just once.

If a is larger than b, we write a > b. We write ab to mean that a > b or a = b.

• Nice, thank you. You are probably right that it might not be a good idea after all, but its nice to see how it could be realized. Nov 15 '18 at 22:22