[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- To: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
- Subject: Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- From: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 10:58:57 GMT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> No they do not; they are just synonyms for glyphs.
Yes, major boo-boo. I did not look at the particular examples but was just
summarising what Berthold generally complains about: that there are
different names for the same things (and the same name for different things).
Nevertheless, I am sure that there are a lot of people who do think
that these sort of names (and the ones we are talking about in
newmath.dtx) are the canonical names of glyphs/characters when, in
fact, as you pint out, they are just some useful names for what I am
bold enough to call mathematical entities (since otherwise I would
have to invent another name for this abstraction). And in these
cases quoted, they are importantly different mathematical entities.
Apologies for all the confusion caused.