[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Another technical question about arrow-building

>Justin asked about the \flat and \sharp. I replied that I have used both
>of them in my thesis (Algebraic Topology) to denote duality between algebraic

Yes, the `abstract nonsense' crowd are very into \flat, \sharp and
\natural.  They're common enough in that field to be strong contenders
for inclusion in an MSi encoding.  I don't think they're dependent
enough on the MC font shape to deserve going into MC (fortunately,
since space in MC is going to be precious!)

>It woul be nice to investigate the influence of \TeX\ on typesetting and
>doing mathematics.

I think that would be a very nice and very useful paper.  I'm sure
that TeX has has quite an influence on the choice of mathematical
notation of the last 10+ years.  Any volunteers?

One example of TeX's influence (IMHO) is the choice of different
mathematicians to use $\bigsqcup$ or $\bigvee$ to mean `lattice join'.
Partly this is tradition, but partly I expect that the lack of a
$\bigsqcap$ in cmex meant that anyone who stepped from the theory of
complete semi-lattices to the theory of lattices would suddenly need
to use $\bigvee$ and $\bigwedge$!  So CS and domain theory types (who
don't use meet very much) stick with $\bigsqcup$ whilst the lattice
theorists use $\bigvee$...

>In another message I was asking about oblique arrows (in category theory and
>algebraic topology they [oops, I almost said ``we''...] need them a lot for

Yes, there is a need for diagonal arrows, the question is how much
should be covered by the vanilla math fonts, and how much should be
left to the commuting diagrams package.  I expect the final answer
will depend on how many free slots there are in MX!

>Any plans of incorporating Michael Spivak's LAMS fonts, 

Are these up for anonymous ftp from somewhere?

>or perhaps the work on arrows presented in Prague?