[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**: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 10:58:57 GMT**Cc**:*math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*

> > chris: > 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. chris

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