[Q] Looking for an integer interval symbol

[Sylvain LEVEQUE]

Hi all

As a student, whenever I was working with integer intervals, I used what
I believed to be a standard, or at least common-admitted notation, which
would look like [ and ], but with double vertical bars.

To make it clear:
----
||
||
||
||
----

Referring to http://minilink.de?2dxvkwx it seems that it isn't a
well-known shortcut for integer intervals outside of my class :)
You may notice another Frenchman seems to have an approaching notation,
with [[ and ]] (previous link, Denis Feldmann's post).

I suppose that is what accounts for me not finding the corresponding
Latex symbol.

So, here are my two questions:
- does the symbol actually exist?

if the answer is "yes":
- could you please put me on its way?

if the answer is "no":
- what workaround could draw this symbol?

I still have the [a..b] solution, though.

Thanks
--
Sylvain

[Morten Høgholm]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:55:25 +0200, Sylvain LEVEQUE
<_NOSP...@laposte.net_NOSPAM_> wrote:

> To make it clear:
> ----
> ||
> ||
> ||
> ||
> ----
>
> Referring to http://minilink.de?2dxvkwx it seems that it isn't a
> well-known shortcut for integer intervals outside of my class :)
> You may notice another Frenchman seems to have an approaching notation,
> with [[ and ]] (previous link, Denis Feldmann's post).
>
> I suppose that is what accounts for me not finding the corresponding
> Latex symbol.
>
> So, here are my two questions:
> - does the symbol actually exist?
>
> if the answer is "yes":
> - could you please put me on its way?

Start out by reading
<http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=symbols> and follow the
instructions.
--
Morten Høgholm
I haven't got a smelly address.
UK-TUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>

[Sylvain Lévêque]

> Start out by reading
> <http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=symbols> and follow the
> instructions.

Thanks, found p32 of the symbols-a4.pdf file.
--
Sylvain

[Hendrik Maryns]

Don't try the nath-package, it's incompatible with amsmath. And if you
don't want to load a package for just one symbol (though stmaryrd has other
useful symbols), you can do

\newcommand{\lbracket}{[\!\![}

where you can vary the number of \!.

H.

[Lars Madsen]

incompatible in which way?

as far as I know they can coexist. Just don't mix them.

--
/daleif (remove RTFSIGNATURE from email address)

LaTeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
AMSMATH Intro: http://www.ams.org/tex/short-math-guide.html
LaTeX Intro: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker/lshort/lshort.pdf
Graphics Intro: http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/info/epslatex.pdf
Superb Class:
http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/entries/memoir.html
Remember to post minimal working examples.

[Sylvain Lévêque]

Hendrik Maryns wrote:

> Don't try the nath-package, it's incompatible with amsmath.

Actually, I tried the \textlbrackdbl from textcomp, which seems to be a
base package. It's rendered each time differently, when looking at my PS
or PDF resulting file. The space between the two vertical bars doesn't
always clearly appear.

> \newcommand{\lbracket}{[\!\![}

I gave it a try, but latex complained. I'm really far from being a TeX
guru, so here's what I did:

- I put your \newcommand with the other ones, at the beginning of my
document, renaming it to \ldblbracket
- I called it by \ldblbracket in a \include TeX file

The error is:

! Missing $ inserted.
<inserted text>
$
l.59 \ldblbracket

I tried protecting the call in a math environment, $\ldblbracket$. It
compiled fine, but I only obtained a [ in the resulting PS.

I also wondered whether it were the brackets that required being
protected, but \newcommand{\ldblbracket}{\[\!\!\[} resulted in latex
complaining about a "Bad math environment delimiter".

I understand what you are trying to do, partly *overwriting* the first
bracket with the second one. It seems to be a simple trick to create the
real set symbol, for example.

But I don't know how to further debug the attempt.
--
Sylvain

[Sylvain Lévêque]

> I tried protecting the call in a math environment, $\ldblbracket$. It
> compiled fine, but I only obtained a [ in the resulting PS.

Avant de parler, tourne toujours ta langue sept fois dans ta bouche.

\newcommand{\ldblbracket}{[\![}, called with $\ldblbracket$ was the answer.
Two \! made the brackets match...

Thanks :)
--
Sylvain

[Hendrik Maryns]

Lars Madsen wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:13:49 +0200, Hendrik Maryns
>> <hendrik...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sylvain Lévêque wrote:
>>>>>> Start out by reading
>>>>>> <http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=symbols> and
>>>>>> follow the instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, found p32 of the symbols-a4.pdf file.
>>>
>>> Don't try the nath-package, it's incompatible with amsmath. And if
>>> you don't want to load a package for just one symbol (though
>>> stmaryrd has other
>>> useful symbols), you can do
>>>
>>> \newcommand{\lbracket}{[\!\![}
>>>
>>> where you can vary the number of \!.
>>>
>>> H.
>>>
>>
>> incompatible in which way?
>>
>> as far as I know they can coexist. Just don't mix them.

Well, ok I don't really know, I loaded them both and nath gave a warning
that it is better not to use them together, so I didn't, and as amsmath is
irreplacable for me...

What do you mean by "just don't mix them"?

H.

[Hendrik Maryns]

Yes, sorry, I didn't check. Strange thing is, I did the same with \{\{,
and there I needed two \!'s... (At first three, I don't know why that
worked)

Anyway, the messages about missing $ can't have anything to do with that.

H.

[Lars Madsen]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 00:55:13 +0200, Hendrik Maryns
<hendrik...@despammed.com> wrote:

as far as I know nath only operates inside $$...$$ pairs (and possibly
$..$ pairs)
which is normaly not recommended in LaTeX (it's old TeX syntax)

And so if you just only use the special nath commands such as \wall and
\return inside
a $$...$$ pair and not inside any amsmath environments it sould work (but

I don't really know,

I usually stick to amsmath)

[Jean-Come Charpentier]

Hendrik Maryns wrote:
> Sylvain Lévêque wrote:
>
>>>>I tried protecting the call in a math environment, $\ldblbracket$.
>>>>It compiled fine, but I only obtained a [ in the resulting PS.
>>>
>>>Avant de parler, tourne toujours ta langue sept fois dans ta bouche.

I'm not sure that an literal english translation will be correct. I try:
Before to talk, turn always seven times your tonge in your mouth.
mais j'ai un gros doute :-)

>>>\newcommand{\ldblbracket}{[\![}, called with $\ldblbracket$ was the
>>>answer. Two \! made the brackets match...
>>
>
> Yes, sorry, I didn't check. Strange thing is, I did the same with \{\{,
> and there I needed two \!'s... (At first three, I don't know why that
> worked)
>

Perhaps because the code:

\setbox0=\hbox{\{}\the\wd0

\setbox0=\hbox{[}\the\wd0

gives the output:

5.00002pt
2.77779pt

(with ecmr1000)

Jean-C\^ome Charpentier