[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Binary Relations, draft 1
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Binary Relations, draft 1
- From: Hans Aberg <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:13:51 +0100
- Content-Length: 1359
At 14:42 +0000 1998/11/17, Chris Rowley wrote:
>> » Entities that are considered constant should be typeset upright.
>> » Entities that are considered variable should be typeset
>> yes, absolutely yes.
>No, but not absolutely (nothing is on this side of the channel).
>There is nothing wrong with this convention (indeed, it may be
>excleent) but it is certainly not current in the UK, nor I belive in
>the US. I do not think that it ever was used in pure maths but I know
>from personal experience that it was not something that was changed by
>TeX in either the UK or the US for pure maths.
The first rule about typesetting rules of pure math I think is that there
is none such rule! :-)
However, the rule is certainly known in the US -- it says something about
that functions and variable should be typeset this or another way (or have
forgotten the exact wording), and it is always used.
When trying to reach down to a general principle, then I arrived at the
wording I gave. It then turned out that a similar rule existed in some
standards, as I recall from the LaTeX3 mailing list discussions.
* Email: Hans Aberg <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
* Home Page: <http://www.matematik.su.se/~haberg/>
* AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>