Replace "smaller" with "lower" and "larger" with "greater"?

[Eisenwave]

I've noticed that [algorithms] contains numerous uses of "smaller" and "larger" instead of "lesser" and "greater", or "smallest" and "largest" instead of "least" and "greatest". For example:

Returns: The larger value. Returns the first argument when the arguments are equivalent.
- [alg.min.max] p10

This is surprising and doesn't follow mathematical convention, where you typically speak of "greatest common divisor", "least common multiple", or "lower of two values", not in terms of "smaller" and "larger", which are reminiscent of physical size comparisons. This language is also inconsistent with:

• std::gcd (can't mean largest common multiple)
• < (the less-than operator and Unicode LESS-THAN SIGN)
• > (the greater-than operator and Unicode GREATER-THAN SIGN)
• std::xxx_ordering::greater and std::xxx_ordering::less
  -std::less and std::greater

With 186 uses, "greater" is much more common in the standard than "larger", at 25. I think we should use consistent language. The standard library symbol names are pretty consistent in using less/great-terminology, but the prose is frequently breaking this convention.

Suggested Fix

Since the words are synonyms and there is no possible ambiguity caused or resolved, we can simply search/replace these terms:

-The larger value.
+The greater value.

[frederick-vs-ja]

As noted in #6776 (comment), it's probably wrong to specify these algorithms with "smaller", "lower", "larger", or "greater".

[CaseyCarter]

This issue is now LWG-4167.