R (the set of real numbers) in LaTeX?
Angel Tsankov
How can I output R -- the set of real numbers -- with LaTeX?
Thanks in advance,
Angel Tsankov
Ulrike Fischer
> Hallo,
>
> How can I output R -- the set of real numbers -- with LaTeX?
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=numbersets
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=symbols
--
Ulrike Fischer
Lars Madsen
\usepackage{amssymb}
\mathbb{R}
or perhaps
\usepackage{bbm}
\mathbbm{R}
(that is a type-3 font, though)
--
/daleif (remove RTFSIGNATURE from email address)
LaTeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
LaTeX book: http://www.imf.au.dk/system/latex/bog/ (in Danish)
Remember to post minimal examples, see URL below
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=minxampl
http://www.minimalbeispiel.de/mini-en.html
Tim Love
>Hallo,
>How can I output R -- the set of real numbers -- with LaTeX?
Try
http://www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/info/symbols/comprehensive/symbols-a4.pdf
Angel Tsankov
Thanks a lot. I think I'm gonna typeset the number sets simply in bold
(citing http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=numbersets):
Traditionally these [the set of real numbers and other standard number sets]
were typeset in bold.
Angel
Lars Madsen
depending on your document it might be an idea ot include a symbol
reference of at least some of the symbols. Then nobody gets confused
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
> Ulrike Fischer wrote:
> > Am Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:56:38 +0300 schrieb Angel Tsankov:
>
> >> Hallo,
>
> >> How can I output R -- the set of real numbers -- with LaTeX?
>
> >http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=numbersets
> >http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=symbols
>
> Thanks a lot. I think I'm gonna typeset the number sets simply in bold
> Traditionally these [the set of real numbers and other standard number sets]
> were typeset in bold.
Isn't it traditional by now to use the \mathbb variant? I spend a
remarkable part of my waking time reading math texts, and I
tend to see the `simply bold' notation only in pretty old papers
(it is surely not extint, though)
-- m
Angel Tsankov
> Angel Tsankov wrote:
>> Ulrike Fischer wrote:
>>> Am Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:56:38 +0300 schrieb Angel Tsankov:
>>>
>>>> Hallo,
>>>>
>>>> How can I output R -- the set of real numbers -- with LaTeX?
>>> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=numbersets
>>> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=symbols
>>
>> Thanks a lot. I think I'm gonna typeset the number sets simply in
>> bold (citing
>> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=numbersets):
>> Traditionally these [the set of real numbers and other standard
>> number sets] were typeset in bold. Angel
>>
>>
>
> depending on your document it might be an idea ot include a symbol
> reference of at least some of the symbols. Then nobody gets confused
Excuse me, but I did not get your idea. What does it mean to 'include a
symbol reference'.
Angel
G. A. Edgar
<fn4...@fmi.uni-sofia.bg> wrote:
> Excuse me, but I did not get your idea. What does it mean to 'include a
> symbol reference'.
It means to tell the reader what the symbols mean. What a
revolutionary concept!
--
G. A. Edgar http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~edgar/
David Kastrup
> On Sep 15, 7:12 am, "Angel Tsankov" <fn42...@fmi.uni-sofia.bg> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks a lot. I think I'm gonna typeset the number sets simply in bold
>> (citing http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=numbersets):
>> Traditionally these [the set of real numbers and other standard number sets]
>> were typeset in bold.
>
> Isn't it traditional by now to use the \mathbb variant?
"traditional by now" is an oxymoron. Don't you mean "customary"?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
UKTUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>
Dan
> Mariano Suárez-Alvarez <mariano.suarezalva...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sep 15, 7:12 am, "Angel Tsankov" <fn42...@fmi.uni-sofia.bg> wrote:
>
> >> Thanks a lot. I think I'm gonna typeset the number sets simply in bold
> >> Traditionally these [the set of real numbers and other standard number sets]
> >> were typeset in bold.
>
> > Isn't it traditional by now to use the \mathbb variant?
>
> "traditional by now" is an oxymoron. Don't you mean "customary"?
It's was customary 20 years ago, by now it is traditional.
I don't necessarily agree with that statement, but it illustrates
that "traditional by now" is not an oxymoron: the addition of
"by now" carries the suggestion that it has been customary
for some time, long enough to be considered a tradition.
I also don't think that this is necessarily what the OP was
trying to convey, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Dan
Lars Madsen
this is actually one of the reasons why we (I) do not recommend using
say, \R as the real numbers, too many people use it for different things.
We recommend using more descripting names, say, \fieldR for the real
numbers as a field, or just \numberR. we use prefixes instead of post
fixes because of editors like emacs, Kile and Led
/daleif
Joe Fineman
> Isn't it traditional by now to use the \mathbb variant? I spend a
> remarkable part of my waking time reading math texts, and I tend to
> see the `simply bold' notation only in pretty old papers (it is
> surely not extint, though)
Authors do indeed seem largely to have settled on openface, tho that
American Mathematical Society, which calls it by the pejorative name
"blackboard boldface" (as abbreviated in "\mathbb"), has waged a
pointless campaign against it for several decades.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: We promise according to our hopes and perform according to :||
||: our fears. :||
Dan
> Mariano Suárez-Alvarez <mariano.suarezalva...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Isn't it traditional by now to use the \mathbb variant? I spend a
> > remarkable part of my waking time reading math texts, and I tend to
> > see the `simply bold' notation only in pretty old papers (it is
> > surely not extint, though)
>
> Authors do indeed seem largely to have settled on openface, tho that
> American Mathematical Society, which calls it by the pejorative name
> "blackboard boldface" (as abbreviated in "\mathbb"),
What in the world is pejorative about blackboards? The name
simply reflects the origin of the origin of the style. Also, most
of the available font packages use that or a similar name
(mbboard, bbm).
Would you call Fraktur (broken) pejorative?
> has waged a
> pointless campaign against it for several decades.
Not exactly pointless. Math is expensive enough to deal
with in publications without unnecessary multiplication
of symbols. (Why unecessary? Well, we got along quite
well without them for a good deal longer than we've had
them.) We are also sending the wrong signals to our new
young mathematicians that certain math symbols MUST
be in a certain style.
Also, all blackboard bold fonts IMO are ugly.
Also, openface is not the same as blackboard bold.
The openface fonts provided by in the amsfonts
package (and mbboard) are not blackboard bold.
Finally, while I'm in a venting mood, every blackboard
bold font I've seen (except AMS and mbboard, which
aren't even blackboard bold) gets the "N" wrong (the
slanted stroke should be doubled), and some
(AMS and mbboard) get the "A" wrong (the left side
should be doubled), and there is no good way to do a
blackboard bold S (no one should even try it).
Dan
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
> On Sep 15, 7:35 pm, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Mariano Suárez-Alvarez <mariano.suarezalva...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > Isn't it traditional by now to use the \mathbb variant? I spend a
> > > remarkable part of my waking time reading math texts, and I tend to
> > > see the `simply bold' notation only in pretty old papers (it is
> > > surely not extint, though)
>
> > Authors do indeed seem largely to have settled on openface, tho that
> > American Mathematical Society, which calls it by the pejorative name
> > "blackboard boldface" (as abbreviated in "\mathbb"),
>
> What in the world is pejorative about blackboards? The name
> simply reflects the origin of the origin of the style. Also, most
> of the available font packages use that or a similar name
> (mbboard, bbm).
>
> Would you call Fraktur (broken) pejorative?
>
> > has waged a
> > pointless campaign against it for several decades.
>
> Not exactly pointless. Math is expensive enough to deal
> with in publications without unnecessary multiplication
> of symbols. (Why unecessary? Well, we got along quite
> well without them for a good deal longer than we've had
> them.) We are also sending the wrong signals to our new
> young mathematicians that certain math symbols MUST
> be in a certain style.
Why I would probably never go all-caps on it, I think
the usefulness of consistent notation can be overestimated.
Young mathematicians should be very aware of the fact
that just as coming up with good names, coming up with
good notations is very hard. And that coming up with
widely accepted and recognized notations is even harder.
So if a young mathematician came for advice, I would
make sure both that she knows there is no absolute need
for her to use \mathbb for the real field, and, at the same time,
that she does use it in whatever she is writing.
> Also, all blackboard bold fonts IMO are ugly.
>
> Also, openface is not the same as blackboard bold.
> The openface fonts provided by in the amsfonts
> package (and mbboard) are not blackboard bold.
>
> Finally, while I'm in a venting mood, every blackboard
> bold font I've seen (except AMS and mbboard, which
> aren't even blackboard bold) gets the "N" wrong (the
> slanted stroke should be doubled), and some
> (AMS and mbboard) get the "A" wrong (the left side
> should be doubled), and there is no good way to do a
> blackboard bold S (no one should even try it).
This is about as rational as finding blackboards pejorative ;-)
Not that there is nothing wrong with that, of course!
-- m
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
Hmm. "cannot be overestimated", I mean. :/
-- m
David Klassen
>
> What in the world is pejorative about blackboards? The name
The chalk that gets everywhere and dries out the skin
of your hands. :)
Robin Fairbairns
not if you soak it in water. we did this for a latin teacher we
didn't like (among other things, he chain-smoked during lessons).
with wet chalk his fingers stayed their natural grubby brown, but (oh
joy) he couldn't write on the board.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Michaël Grünewald
In some areas, it is customary to use boldface R, C, H, O for the four
real normed algebras (reals, complexes, quaternions and octonions), and
the blackboard face R, C, H, O for their complexified counterparts.
--
Michaël
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
wrote:
Interesting. What areas are those?
-- m
Michaël Grünewald
>> In some areas, it is customary to use boldface R, C, H, O for the four
>> real normed algebras (reals, complexes, quaternions and octonions), and
>> the blackboard face R, C, H, O for their complexified counterparts.
>
> Interesting. What areas are those?
The four real normed algebras are important objects with respect to the
classification of Jordan Algebras. This classifications looks the same
as the theory of representations of a reductive group, the basic pieces
are called simple Jordan algebras and each simple Jordan algebra can be
realized as sub algebra of the matrix algebra with scalars in R, C, H or
O (and the A*B = (AB + BA)/2 product, commutative but non associative).
Jordan algebras were introduced to formalize some properties of
operators in quantum physics. IIRC (from Kevin Mc Crimmon's book) this
is not a brillant success from the physicist point of view, but Jordan
algebras are very interesting objects for the mathematician. As an
example of their marvellous properties, one gets all the exceptional Lie
groups (E6 -- E8, F4 and G2) as automorphism groups with respect to some
generic construction applied to Jordan algebras. Thus the exceptional
groups do not look so exceptional from this point of view. Another
example, is that the Severi varieties can be constructed out of Jordan
algebras (again, with a generic construction).
If you feel curious about all of this, and want some more general
information, I warmly recommand John Baez's introduction to octonions,
and more especially the ``Octonionic projective geometry part'':
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/octonions/node8.html
It's a very pleasing presentation, with historical notes, pictures and
not much technicites.
--
Cheers,
Michaël
David Klassen
That's hilarious!
In our new (well, now 4 year old) building we just didn't put in any
chalkboards. It's all whiteboards and non-high-producing dry-erase
markers. Of course, this now means more to throw away at the
end of a semester but multi-color notes are nice.
Still can't do boldface though... Need a smartboard!
hrtib...@gmail.com
Do both \mathbb{R} and \mathbbm{R} give type-3 fonts?
I have wanted to use a type-1 font. What should I use in that case?
Thanks
Bob Tennent
> Do both \mathbb{R} and \mathbbm{R} give type-3 fonts?
> I have wanted to use a type-1 font. What should I use in that case?
\usepackage{newtxmath}
\mathbb{R}
\varmathbb{R}
Read newtxdoc.pdf for options.
Bob T.
Dan Luecking
(type-1, truetype, opentype, etc.) if available. The AMS
fonts are available as type-1 so the following should work:
\usepackage{amsfonts}
...
$\mathbb{R}$
The \mathbbm command is, I believe, from the bbm package. I am
pretty sure that the fonts it provides are type-3 only. Bob's
answer provides a type-1 variant that is close to (but not the
same as) what the bbm package provides.
Cheers,
Dan
To reply by email, change LookInSig to luecking
Ronnie Marksch
according to ISO standard iso-80000-2:2009 §6 \mathbf{R} is the
recommended symbol (same for the other sets of numbers).
Afaik, the double lines are only mimicking the recommended symbol when a
bold pen/chalk is not available such as on black boards.
Ronnie
Axel Berger
> Afaik, the double lines are only mimicking the recommended symbol when a
> bold pen/chalk is not available such as on black boards.
become accustomed to them and they are quite distinct and easy to
recognize. They already were the customary symbols in all my schoolbooks
ages ago and that was not because printers did not have bold fonts at
the time.
--
/¯\ No | Dipl.-Ing. F. Axel Berger Tel: +49/ 221/ 7771 8067
\ / HTML | Roald-Amundsen-Straße 2a Fax: +49/ 221/ 7771 8069
X in | D-50829 Köln-Ossendorf http://berger-odenthal.de
/ \ Mail | -- No unannounced, large, binary attachments, please! --