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

**To**:*bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>***Subject**:**Re: Inverted (=reflected) N****From**:*Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>***Date**: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 22:40:29 GMT**Cc**:*tech-support@MATH.AMS.ORG, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*

b wrote --- > regarding the "reflected" vs. "rotated" vs. "inverted", the symbols > known to tex as \forall and \exists used to be known here (for an > earlier system) as "inva" and "reve", for "inverted" and "reversed" > (i.e. reflected). (hmmm ... they're also sans serif, if not quite > as spindly ...) Yes, I suspect that the spindly style does come from these two which (I guess) have been around for longer...but as you say, the spindle-factor did seem to get increased. > > i think this would probably be a good occasion to impose some uniformity > on this notation. proposal: > - Xinv -- inverted top-to-bottom > - Xrefl -- mirrored left-to-right > - Xrot -- rotated 180\deg so that the top is now the bottom, etc. I would be happy with those names: of course, for letters with some symmetry (eg N, A, E) two of these names will both be applicable to the same glyph. Thus one also needs some precedence rule to get a canonical name. {See, I can still apply some of that group theory:-) chris

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Inverted (=reflected) N** - Next by Date:
**Re: Inverted (=reflected) N** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Inverted (=reflected) N** - Next by thread:
**Re: Inverted (=reflected) N** - Index(es):