# Re: \bigplus ?

• To: Matthias Clasen <clasen@pong.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>
• Subject: Re: \bigplus ?
• From: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>
• Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:01:29 GMT
• Cc: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk

Matthias wrote --

>
> Today I have received a request (in German, thus I don't reproduce it
> here) for a \bigplus (actually it was an announcement for a small LaTeX
> package implementing it and \bigtimes).

I did not know you were still taking requests:-).  I remebered one
symbol (inverted N) that I do not think ever got recorded before:
it is far more exotic than this one but I can give refs for it.

I can immediatley see why one might \bigplus (despite the existence of
\sigma) but the same argument applies to any mathbin (well, at least
any that is ever used to represent an associative operation).

>
> Since we already have added \bigtimes to MX1, it seems logical
> to complete the square' of \times/\bigtimes \plus/\bigplus.

I would definitely agree with this argument (I can imagine myelf using
\bigplus far more than \bigtimes: I never got onto big boys' maths like
multiplication:-)

>
> The requester didn't give a reference for the use of \bigplus,
> but he mentioned an author who would have used it if the symbol
> would have been available.

Ah, how the world changes: when I first started reproducing maths on
paper one could have simply said to the author that if she (see, it
was not that long ago:-) wanted it then the typesetter would provide
it.  And they call this progress!

chris

`