\mathbb or \mathbbm ?
Francois Coppex
different books $\mathbb{R}$ and in another one $\mathbbm{R}$. So, I'm asking if there exists a
typographical convention definging the correct way of writing the sets N, Z, Q, R, C ?
Tomaz Cedilnik
I use fonts bbm10, bbm7, bbm5 (that would probably be \mathbbm). I don't
know \mathbb though.
--
_______
/__ __/___ __ __
/ / __ \ `_ `_ \
/ / /_/ / // // /
/_/\____/_//_//_/
Francois Coppex
> know \mathbb though.
\usepackage{bbm}
and then $\mathbbm{R}$. I think this is a wellknown package. $\mathbb{R}$ comes with the package
amsfonts, and the capital letters are obtained by superimposing and translating the normal
capital letters (I think).
Robin Fairbairns
no -- the ams symbol fonts contain a set of blackboard bold uppercase
letters (and, iirc, the digit 1).
there's no "typographical convention"[*] -- look at what you get from
the two alternatives and make your own choice.
[*] except that some older typographers claim they don't understand
why mathematicians had to go away from "real" bold letters... ;-)
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Giuseppe Bilotta
> [*] except that some older typographers claim they don't understand
> why mathematicians had to go away from "real" bold letters... ;-)
Because so it could be used also for naturals, integers, rationals and
complex numbers, and for other fields :-)
--
Giuseppe Bilotta
Axiom I of the Giuseppe Bilotta
theory of IT:
Anything is better than MS
Frank Wikström
Not as far as I know. Historically, most printed mathematical texts used
bold letters for R, N, Z, Q etc. When pepole wrote these symbols on the
blackboard, most used \mathbb{R} etc. (It's not that easy to write bold
letters...) Eventually the handwritten version of the bold symbols found
their way into printed works.
Best regards,
Frank Wikström
Robin Fairbairns
>Robin Fairbairns wrote:
>> [*] except that some older typographers claim they don't understand
>> why mathematicians had to go away from "real" bold letters... ;-)
>
>Because so it could be used also for naturals, integers, rationals and
>complex numbers, and for other fields :-)
when i learned maths, the lecturers used blackboard bold on the
blackboard[*], but the textbooks all used bold for naturals, integers,
rationals and complex numbers, and for other fields :-)
i don't think anyone was particularly confused by all this. what do
lecturers do for things that still _are_ bold in text books? or does
no maths lecturer ever write on anything during a lecture nowadays?
[*] this was before the days of whiteboards, ohp, all that sort of
rubbish.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Giuseppe Bilotta
> Giuseppe Bilotta <obl...@freemail.it> wrote:
> >Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> >> [*] except that some older typographers claim they don't understand
> >> why mathematicians had to go away from "real" bold letters... ;-)
> >
> >Because so it could be used also for naturals, integers, rationals and
> >complex numbers, and for other fields :-)
>
> when i learned maths, the lecturers used blackboard bold on the
> blackboard[*], but the textbooks all used bold for naturals, integers,
> rationals and complex numbers, and for other fields :-)
> i don't think anyone was particularly confused by all this.
Oh, but now you're talking about bold. You were talking about "real"
bold in the previous post, and no serious mathematician would use
"real" bold for non-real numbers ;-)
> [*] this was before the days of whiteboards, ohp, all that sort of
> rubbish.
Is there a whiteboard bold? ;-)
Dan Luecking
> Giuseppe Bilotta <obl...@freemail.it> wrote:
> >Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> >> [*] except that some older typographers claim they don't understand
> >> why mathematicians had to go away from "real" bold letters... ;-)
> >
> >Because so it could be used also for naturals, integers, rationals and
> >complex numbers, and for other fields :-)
>
> when i learned maths, the lecturers used blackboard bold on the
> blackboard[*], but the textbooks all used bold for naturals, integers,
> rationals and complex numbers, and for other fields :-)
This was, of course, The Right Way (tm) to do things.
>
> i don't think anyone was particularly confused by all this.
Well, we were all smarter in those days, without any fancy machines to do
our thinking for us.
> what do
> lecturers do for things that still _are_ bold in text books? or does
> no maths lecturer ever write on anything during a lecture nowadays?
Actually, in many areas it appears that there are no _real_ bold symbols
any more. Just blackboard bold, and regular (and the odd[*] fraktur).
[*] I use the word "odd" here to mean "occasional", but some lecturers
do produce some rather unusual renditions.
Dan Luecking