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

Re: \sim versus \thicksim

Matthias Clasen <clasen@pong.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>:
>Last weekend, I did some extensive reshuffling of MSP/MS1/MS2 to free
>the region 0-31 and improve the font tables. In doing so I stumbled
>over the \thicksim and \thickapprox in MSP. Are these really different
>enough from \sim and \approx to justify separate slots ? I doubt one
>could use them next to each other in a single document.

  I had a look at them, at found it difficult to distinguish them, even
when side by side. Is this not what one should call in typesetting-lingo
that \thicksim is a heavy version of \sim?

  The other question though is: Would it be useful with a boldface versions
of \sim, clearly distingushable, so that they both can be used in a
document? I think the answer is yes: It would be good if most, if not all
symbols exist in a boldface version, too.

  Hans Aberg
                  * Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:haberg@member.ams.org>
                  * AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>