[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Binary Relations, draft 1
- To: Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr>
- Subject: Re: Binary Relations, draft 1
- From: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:45:38 +0000 (GMT)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Content-Length: 1445
Thierry Bouche wrote --
> » And the symbol "a" from the word "a".
> do you realize that most theorems are typeset in italics, whereas most
> proofs are typeset in roman?
Amazingly enough, this fact had impinged on my consciousness during
the years (probably more than you have had birthdays) during which I
have been reading, writing and editing maths.
However, in the large quantity of mathematical works on whose
typographic design I have had a lesding influence you will not see
this user-unfriendly convention used.
Is this also done in French texts?
It may not make too much difference to non-native readers of English
but it is a considerable nuisance to native readers, especially when
scanning a theorem to see roughly wht it is saying: the fine structure
is massivley more difficult to elucidate.
> Are you following Knuth's suggestion that text italics should be
> clearly different from math italic (not only via special spacing, but
> even by special shape, as the infamous \sl ?).
That does help a bit when using TeX and CM fonts but I do not think
that the two are very much related.
> If a math text is well written, sich mistakes are impossible, same
> alphabet used or not.
I am sure you are right but, regrettably, it is a theory for which
there exists no test data.
Please show me a "well written math text"; then I shall be able to die happy
Meanwhile maybe we should get back to helping Taco?