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

Re: \sim versus \thicksim

Matthias Clasen <clasen@pong.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>:
>Hans Aberg wrote:
>>   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?

>...I proposed
>to implement the \thicksim macro as \boldsymbol{\sim}.

  But are you sure that \thicksim is a bold version of \sim, and not just a
somewhat heavier version that would be substituted instead of \sim because
it is more readable? The AMS-Fonts contains other such examples, for
example TeX \emptyset versus AMS-fonts \varnothing; the latter would be
preferred in math typesetting.

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