no more than three things

[keannu]

Doesn't this mean "only three things" not "not more than three things = 1 or 2 or 3"? So isn't the distinction between "no more than" and "not more than" clear?

gu66)People are able to concentrate on several items at a time if those items are of the same color, according to research. That's why players at major sporting events wear identical uniforms. It enables the spectators to overcome human' natural limit of tracking no more than three things at once...

[death]

no more than three thing at once means 1 or 2 or 3 and i think there is no distinction. they are the same.

[keannu]

I don't think so, they are different!

[hetzer]

Hi, these two phrases are often seen in the examinations.

Yes. "no more than" is "only" and "not more than" is "as much as"

I have no less than $5,000 today.( = I have as much as $5,000 today.)
We had no less than / no fewer than 250 guests at the party.( = We had as many as 250 guests at the party.)

[5jj]

"no more than three things at once" means 1 or 2 or 3 and i think there is no distinction. they are the same.

Your profile says that you are an English teacher. Please use correct capitalisation, punctuation and spelling in your posts. Learners believe that what is posted here by teachers is correct. We normally write in words numbers up to 'ten'.

[SoothingDave]

I don't think so, they are different!

No, they aren't. "No more than three" means 0, 1, 2 or 3.

"Not more than three" means 0, 1, 2 or 3.

[keannu]

Are you sure? If what you said is true, I have been interpreting so many "no more than" wrong so far.

[SoothingDave]

What do you think "no more than three" means?

[keannu]

"Only three", but some Americans seem to think it as same as "not more than", which gives me the idea of variety or diversity of language.

[SoothingDave]

Where did you get the idea that it means "only three?" The language sets an upper limit.