[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 15:58:35 +0100**Cc**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*

> > 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. > > Yes, I know. This is another case of built-in expectations about how > fonts are designed. I avoided this problem in mmaptm by taking most > of the accents (except for vector) from Times Roman instead of MMa. I will send you my accent-raising patch tomorrow, but you might as well do it by hand: I changed the etx-files for the mathematica fonts to have \setslot{lowacute}\endsetslot instead of \setslot{acute}\endsetslot and inserted \setglyph{acute} \moveup{\int{xheight}} \glyph{lowacute}{1000} \moveup{-\int{xheight}} \endsetglyph in the mtx-file. That works nicely, but you have to make sure that the x-height is really the appropriate one (the etx file says something like \ifisglyph{x} \then\setint{xheight}{\height{x}} \else\setint{xheight}{500} \fi so you have to make sure, that the glyph x is defined. > > Another small thing which went wrong in the last release is the > > order of the new delimiters. > > There's another problem with Euler extension layout. The integrals > and big ops (\sum, \prod, \coprod) should come from euex, not cmex. I will look into that. > > 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. > > I suppose this \inviota would have a similar role as the \backepsilon > (`such that') and would exist only in one shape if available at all? Yes, I guess so. > > So what do you think ? > > If it is a well-established notation, why not? I have no idea how > many users there are in the specific field of mathematical logic, > but I suppose the use of \eth and \thorn for some special kinds of > differentials in quantum field theory is equally rare. (Although > the latter could, if necessary, always be taken from a T1 font.) > Well, I reckon the number of potential users of \inviota is some orders of a magnitude smaller than the numbers for \eth and \thorn (but the physicists won't have a hard time in finding a use for a new symbol, no ?) Anyway, I just went down to the library and can confirm that \inviota is used in some books of Quine, eg Quine, Grundzuege der Logik, p 276 Quine, Selected logic papers, p 45 He quotes Frege and Peano for the notation, but I couldn'd find a reference. I remember some other books where I have seen variants of i, j or \iota used for the same purpose, probably because the \inviota was unavailable. Matthias

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