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

**To**:*vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de***Subject**:**Re: patch for bigdoc.tex, fontchart.sty****From**:*Matthias Clasen <clasen@pong.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>***Date**: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:55:06 +0100**Cc**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*

> P.S. There was a Mathematica 3.0 presentation at our university > today. It appears that none of their sales representatives have > a clue as to the status of their font licensing. They advised > me to get in touch with them by e-mail about specific questions. Speaking about the mathematica fonts, looking at the result of testdoc.tex with the mathematica layout, I noticed that the accents are all wrong, since they live at the baseline, not the x-height, in the mathematica fonts. I fixed this by raising all accents to the x-height in the vf. I don't have the patch here though. Another small thing which went wrong in the last release is the order of the new delimiters. One more thing: Some days ago I saw a request for a mirrored \iota on de.comp.text.tex. The requester was quoting W.V.O.Quine with the statement that this symbol is used `since Peano' for the `the'-functor (i.e. the functor turning a formula \varphi(x) into a term denoting the unique element fulfilling that formula: \inviota x\varphi(x) is `the' x satisfying \varphi). Since I am working in mathematical logic myself, I can confirm the statement. I think \inviota would be a more useful addition the the `greek half' of MC than the exotic greek numerals or \varbeta, which have been removed in the latest release (by Ulriks reorganization of MC/MSP/MS1). If wanted, I can dig up references for the actual use of \inviota in the literature. So what do you think ? Regards, Matthias

- Prev by Date:
**patch for bigdoc.tex, fontchart.sty** - Next by Date:
**Re: patch for bigdoc.tex, fontchart.sty** - Prev by thread:
**patch for bigdoc.tex, fontchart.sty** - Next by thread:
**Re: patch for bigdoc.tex, fontchart.sty** - Index(es):