# Re: patch for bigdoc.tex, fontchart.sty

• 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
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

`