[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- To: Ulrik Vieth <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:44:54 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
No they do not; they are just synonyms for glyphs.
ulrik corrects me:
Sorry, but you misattributed this quotation. It wasn't me who proposed.
I guess it was Berthold but never mind.
sorry for the misattribution, ulrik. (i seem to be doing that today.)
To comment on the subject, I believe it would be preferable to describe
glyph names by form rather than function (i.e. Omega, Delta, Sigma, Pi),
while refering to function in a document markup.
... The only potential use I could see would be to define
a \smallsum or \smallprod operator using the glyphs \Sigma and \Pi.
that would still be an error. (i would assume that \smallsum is a
symbol, like \smallint, that is intended for use in a superscript.
i don't like \smallint; it's one of the kludges in tex where a
different design would have resulted in a much more logical input
syntax, allowing \int to be used everywhere to mean the integration
of the following expression.)
i have seen, in a manuscript submitted to and published by ams,
\sum \Sigma ...
these are two different things -- one is an operator, the other is
a variable. it's also possible to reverse them:
\Sigma \sum ...
it's a historical convention that a large Sigma is used to indicate
summation. and by now, the summation operator has a rather different
shape in print. i don't know how, except by referring to textual
context outside the math expression, it might be possible to
distinguish between these two examples if the names were the same;
i surely couldn't do it, and i think it would be pretty tricky for
a computer program to do it too. and *that* is why we must be
careful about naming.