Double-struck 1
Merciadri Luca
Hash: SHA1
Hello folks,
I am trying to reproduce the double-struck ``1'' symbol. This is like
the digit 1 if it was printed in a mathbb mode.
It does not work.
Here is a MWE of what I am doing:
==
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\usepackage{mathbbol} % note that `mathbbol' can be replaced by
% `bbold,' but it does not work more.
\begin{document}
Here you are (actually not): $\mathbb{1}$.
\end{document}
==
Any idea? This character is present in the UTF set.
Thanks.
- --
Merciadri Luca
See http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~merciadri/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iEYEARECAAYFAkr6yK4ACgkQM0LLzLt8MhwwEwCdGVxDzvdRwZUH/42o8gWS8odJ
3qIAoJr1nuB8KLCkJpe+b7hLbYZ4gJ2n
=sHiX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dan Luecking
<Luca.Me...@student.ulg.ac.be> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Hello folks,
>
>I am trying to reproduce the double-struck ``1'' symbol. This is like
>the digit 1 if it was printed in a mathbb mode.
>
>It does not work.
>
>Here is a MWE of what I am doing:
>==
>\documentclass{article}
>\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
>\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
>\usepackage{mathbbol} % note that `mathbbol' can be replaced by
>% `bbold,' but it does not work more.
>
>
>\begin{document}
>Here you are (actually not): $\mathbb{1}$.
>
>\end{document}
>==
>Any idea? This character is present in the UTF set.
Your sample file works for me. How do you call latex?
Or do you use pdflatex?
What TeX system are you using? TeX Live 2008? TL2009?
MiKTeX? Other?
Are there any screen messages when you compile this file?
Any warnings or errors in the .log file?
I can think of one possibility that would prevent your
sample file from "working", but it would have produced
a screen error message that you would surely not have
failed to mentioned.
Dan
To reply by email, change LookInSig to luecking
Merciadri Luca
Hash: SHA1
Dan Luecking <Look...@uark.edu> writes:
> Your sample file works for me. How do you call latex?
> Or do you use pdflatex?
Thanks for your message. I was actually using latex (-> .dvi) -> dvips
(-> .ps) -> ps2pdf (-> .pdf), and it seems to be the only routine
which does not work for the .pdf. When using this, my .dvi has the
good `1', my .ps does not have any character except a blank space
where the `1' should be, and it is the same for the .pdf.
>
> What TeX system are you using? TeX Live 2008? TL2009?
> MiKTeX? Other?
I was trying this on my Windows XP computer, i.e. with MikTeX. Did you
try on your system with the different kinds of compilation steps?
> Are there any screen messages when you compile this file?
Yes, I have now noticed that I had
`dvips: Font bbold10 not found, characters will be left blank.'
That explains that both .pdf and .ps were blank, as the .pdf was
obtained by the .ps.
It seems to be a bug, doesn't it?
> Any warnings or errors in the .log file?
That was the only problem.
>
> I can think of one possibility that would prevent your
> sample file from "working", but it would have produced
> a screen error message that you would surely not have
> failed to mentioned.
Sorry for my absentmindedness. Everything always works here (nice,
isn't it?) and I sometimes lose the habit of checking this.
- --
Merciadri Luca
See http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~merciadri/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iEYEARECAAYFAkr7NUYACgkQM0LLzLt8Mhwb6ACbBIQgkbFNABloXyNIPrPb1opd
ZTAAoIVW+eHEwlp5SrElQwlnBJ2GXfwD
=LR0s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Robin Fairbairns
>Dan Luecking <Look...@uark.edu> writes:
>> What TeX system are you using? TeX Live 2008? TL2009?
>> MiKTeX? Other?
>
>I was trying this on my Windows XP computer, i.e. with MikTeX. Did you
>try on your system with the different kinds of compilation steps?
(false deduction: tex live also offers windows machine versions.)
>> Are there any screen messages when you compile this file?
>
>Yes, I have now noticed that I had
>`dvips: Font bbold10 not found, characters will be left blank.'
>That explains that both .pdf and .ps were blank, as the .pdf was
>obtained by the .ps.
this looks as if someone has tried to set up dvips's map to use a
(non-existent) type 1 version of bbold.
dvips _should_ be generating bitmap files from the .mf sources.
i don't regularly use miktex, but the copy i have on my xp machine
_doesn't_ list bbold as a type 1 font. if you can, i would try
uninstalling and re-installing bbold from your miktex.
(not sure what can be done if you've no rights to do that.)
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Dan Luecking
<Luca.Me...@student.ulg.ac.be> wrote:
>Dan Luecking <Look...@uark.edu> writes:
>>
>> What TeX system are you using? TeX Live 2008? TL2009?
>> MiKTeX? Other?
>I was trying this on my Windows XP computer, i.e. with MikTeX. Did you
>try on your system with the different kinds of compilation steps?
I have a prerelease copy of TL2009 on my windows XP and also
the previous version TL2008. Both handled the sample file properly.
>> Are there any screen messages when you compile this file?
>Yes, I have now noticed that I had
>`dvips: Font bbold10 not found, characters will be left blank.'
>That explains that both .pdf and .ps were blank, as the .pdf was
>obtained by the .ps.
>>
>> I can think of one possibility that would prevent your
>> sample file from "working", but it would have produced
>> a screen error message that you would surely not have
>> failed to mentioned.
The possibility I was considering was that recent versions
of pdf(la)tex (as for example in TL2009) had the option
MAKEPK turned off by default. So, if you had this version
and you used pdflatex, you would get the message
!pdfTeX error: pdflatex.exe (file bbold10): Font bbold10
at 600 not found
==> Fatal error occurred, no output PDF file produced!
I just now realized this couldn't be your problem as it
indicates no PDF is produced. I think Robin has diagnosed
it correctly, but it would have been easier had you
originally posted that error message from dvips (and
changed the subject line to something more relevant like
"bbold font not found").
>sorry for my absentmindedness. Everything always works here (nice,
>isn't it?) and I sometimes lose the habit of checking this.
I only start checking it when diagnosing a problem (or
asking for help).
Merciadri Luca
Hash: SHA1
rf...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
I have full rights. I just reinstalled bbold from my miktex, and the
problem is still the same. What could I do?
- --
Merciadri Luca
See http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~merciadri/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iEYEARECAAYFAkr8h8QACgkQM0LLzLt8MhxFKQCaAsZrTSY1G2DafhYzA6YZo8Ms
/SsAn0LRjLAbwpxOxaXuo/rcgM6LcvMd
=b3Ch
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merciadri Luca
Hash: SHA1
Merciadri Luca <Luca.Me...@student.ulg.ac.be> writes:
> rf...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
>
>> Merciadri Luca <Luca.Me...@student.ulg.ac.be> writes:
>>>Dan Luecking <Look...@uark.edu> writes:
>>>> What TeX system are you using? TeX Live 2008? TL2009?
>>>> MiKTeX? Other?
>>>
>>>I was trying this on my Windows XP computer, i.e. with MikTeX. Did you
>>>try on your system with the different kinds of compilation steps?
>>
>> (false deduction: tex live also offers windows machine versions.)
>>
>>>> Are there any screen messages when you compile this file?
>>>
>>>Yes, I have now noticed that I had
>>>`dvips: Font bbold10 not found, characters will be left blank.'
>>>That explains that both .pdf and .ps were blank, as the .pdf was
>>>obtained by the .ps.
>>
>> this looks as if someone has tried to set up dvips's map to use a
>> (non-existent) type 1 version of bbold.
>>
>> dvips _should_ be generating bitmap files from the .mf sources.
>>
>> i don't regularly use miktex, but the copy i have on my xp machine
>> _doesn't_ list bbold as a type 1 font. if you can, i would try
>> uninstalling and re-installing bbold from your miktex.
>>
>> (not sure what can be done if you've no rights to do that.)
> I have full rights. I just reinstalled bbold from my miktex, and the
> problem is still the same. What could I do?
Okay, I have now tried on my texlive (under Debian Lenny w/
2.6.26-2-686) and whatever the routine, it shows a correct
double-struck 1: either with
* latex -> dvips -> ps2pdf
or with
* latex -> dvips; PdfLaTeX.
Whatever the output file (.dvi, .ps, .pdf), the double-struck 1 is
always well printed. It is not the case under MikTeX. Would it be a
bug of MikTeX, as I reinstalled bbold and that nothing has changed?
Thanks.
- --
Merciadri Luca
See http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~merciadri/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iEYEARECAAYFAkr8ifcACgkQM0LLzLt8MhwxNwCgl+huT+EHTcBwksWMw7bTaO4C
DVcAn2HWG6O8yo6XiC/D7F1XcTWCAT2c
=7I+9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Massimo Ortolano
>
> Whatever the output file (.dvi, .ps, .pdf), the double-struck 1 is
> always well printed. It is not the case under MikTeX. Would it be a
> bug of MikTeX, as I reinstalled bbold and that nothing has changed?
>
I'm using MikTeX and it works fine if I remove the switch "-P pdf" when
calling dvips.
Max
Robin Fairbairns
there's _some_ validity in using -Ppdf for output that contains
nothing but scaleable fonts. however, it sets resolution to 8000dpi
for accruacy of positioning, and there's no metafont mode that dvips
would match to that ... so never use -Ppdf if you're using bitmap
fonts.
i think the only blackboard bold outline fonts that contain a "1" are
doublestroke; i don't think i like the shape of the doublestroke
glyphs (disclaimer: i've never used any other blackboard bold font
than the ams set, in anger).
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Merciadri Luca
Hash: SHA1
rf...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
Okay, I'll use I to write the identity matrix. Such a pity.
- --
Merciadri Luca
See http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~merciadri/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iEYEARECAAYFAkr9VxQACgkQM0LLzLt8MhyaCwCgow3dKvB7Cm7ZXF+xhXOzQTB/
1JUAoKRiug7Zh+8BBDcyBfX+rZhJyufv
=igCT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dan Luecking
wrote:
Not exactly on topic:
I just looked at the Catalogue text for bbold. It mentions three
other blackboard bold fonts as well as a "blackboard sampler".
The mbboard font is not one of the three mentioned, nor is it
covered in that sampler. Only available as a metafont, it is a
decent replacement for bbold, if one prefers its look.
It's not part of TeX Live 2009 nor MiKTeX, though it is on CTAN
and seems to be free (to my non-lawyer sort of mind).
I don't particularly like the look of any of the available
BBB fonts, but I also use the ams fonts when I'm forced to.
Merciadri Luca
Hash: SHA1
Dan Luecking <Look...@uark.edu> writes:
> Not exactly on topic:
>
> I just looked at the Catalogue text for bbold. It mentions three
> other blackboard bold fonts as well as a "blackboard sampler".
>
> The mbboard font is not one of the three mentioned, nor is it
> covered in that sampler. Only available as a metafont, it is a
> decent replacement for bbold, if one prefers its look.
>
> It's not part of TeX Live 2009 nor MiKTeX, though it is on CTAN
> and seems to be free (to my non-lawyer sort of mind).
>
> I don't particularly like the look of any of the available
> BBB fonts, but I also use the ams fonts when I'm forced to.
I totally agree with you.
- --
Merciadri Luca
See http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~merciadri/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iEYEARECAAYFAkr+gl4ACgkQM0LLzLt8MhycJgCdEDoEk0oBRadXMwuDlTfJHF8F
D18AnjtaA8GDIjfxu29K814vKfeisUu+
=TgEL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Robin Fairbairns
the people that count don't like the knuth licence, which phan claims
for mbboard. they accept it on knuth's stuff, but not on anything
else: they can do without the non-knuth-authored stuff, but not
without tex itself.
which is why the mbboard fonts aren't in the distributions.
the fact that it's not cross-referenced from the other fonts is my
fault. as also is its absence from the sampler.
>I don't particularly like the look of any of the available
>BBB fonts, but I also use the ams fonts when I'm forced to.
it's a pity the symbols ever came to common use, really -- they seem
regularly to defeat the font-designer's art :-(
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Claas Hemig
> `dvips: Font bbold10 not found, characters will be left blank.'
Some times ago I had a similar problem, but I could solve it. I'm not
sure but I think I solved it via MiKTeX-Settings->Update Formats. Maybe
a "Refresh FNDB" afterwards.
HTH, Claas
Ulrike Fischer
>>> Are there any screen messages when you compile this file?
>>Yes, I have now noticed that I had
>>`dvips: Font bbold10 not found, characters will be left blank.'
>>That explains that both .pdf and .ps were blank, as the .pdf was
>>obtained by the .ps.
> this looks as if someone has tried to set up dvips's map to use a
> (non-existent) type 1 version of bbold.
I don't think so, if I add a faulty map entry the message of dvips
is "can't find bbold.pfb" (with the extension, and without the
"characters will be left blank".
If I remember it correctly the message from the OP means that dvips
failed to generate the pk-font. It is probably the best to try to
run the minimal example with _pdf_latex and check its log file + the
screen messages. In general they contain more informations.
--
Ulrike Fischer
Robin Fairbairns
>Not exactly on topic:
>
>I just looked at the Catalogue text for bbold. It mentions three
>other blackboard bold fonts as well as a "blackboard sampler".
actually, it mentioned two other fonts and a macro package.
>The mbboard font is not one of the three mentioned, nor is it
>covered in that sampler. Only available as a metafont, it is a
>decent replacement for bbold, if one prefers its look.
i've regularised the arrangement so that for each of the four
blackboard fonts references the others. (perhaps there ought to be
mention of the ams symbol fonts too...)
>I don't particularly like the look of any of the available
>BBB fonts, but I also use the ams fonts when I'm forced to.
when i last replied to this message, i had it fixed in my mind that i
was the author of the blackboard sampler. i'm not: my sampler sits
somewhere or other in my file system; so i can't (as i said i would)
make the sampler on ctan provide a showcase for the mbboard fonts,
too.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge