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

**To**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk***Subject**:**Re: large bigops****From**:*Michael Downes <MJD@MATH.AMS.ORG>***Date**: 17 Aug 1993 08:35:41 -0400 (EDT)

> Could anybody give me some explanation for this: > > \item Small versions of operators have a null height, whereas > big versions have a small height and a big depth: > \begin{verbatim} > (CHARACTER O 116 > (COMMENT This is the small \bigotimes) > (CHARWD R 1.1111145) > (CHARDP R 1.000013) > (NEXTLARGER O 117) > ) > (CHARACTER O 117 > (COMMENT This is the big \bigotimes) > (CHARWD R 1.511116) > (CHARHT R 0.100001) > (CHARDP R 1.500012) > ) > \end{verbatim} > > THis is urgent. Since the big operators are vertically centered by TeX with respect to the math axis, the relative proportions of the height and depth are normally not important. I would guess that the height values used were an expedient forced by the Metafont limit of 15 heights and depths per .tfm file. This hypothesis seems to be supported by the use of the padded operator in bigop.mf for the displaystyle versions. Michael Downes mjd@math.ams.org (Internet)

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: large bigops***From:*alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk (Alan Jeffrey)

**References**:**large bigops***From:*Justin Ziegler <ziegler@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: the sim family** - Next by Date:
**Re: new double sized operators:** - Prev by thread:
**large bigops** - Next by thread:
**Re: large bigops** - Index(es):