Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[OT] Blackboard and Chicago - opinions?

24 views
Skip to first unread message

Javier Bezos

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 7:17:13 AM8/10/05
to
Hi all,

The Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) says (13.14):

[...] blackboard bold, in which part of the letter
is doubled when it stands for what would be boldfaced
in type [...]. Blackboard bold should be confined
to the classroom.

What do you think? Should Bbb avoided in type?

Thanks
Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com

Lars Madsen

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 7:23:26 AM8/10/05
to

I don't think so, it's too widely used in mathematics.

For most mathematicians \mathbb{R} is the real numbers wheres \mathbf{R} can be
all sorts of things, ideals, groups, etc.

--

/daleif (remove RTFSIGNATURE from email address)

LaTeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
Superb Class: http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/entries/memoir.html
LaTeX book: http://www.imf.au.dk/system/latex/bog/ (in Danish)
Remember to post minimal working examples.

Morten Høgholm

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 7:30:39 AM8/10/05
to
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:23:26 +0200, Lars Madsen
<dal...@RTFSIGNATUREimf.au.dk> wrote:

> Javier Bezos wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> The Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) says (13.14):
>> [...] blackboard bold, in which part of the letter
>> is doubled when it stands for what would be boldfaced
>> in type [...]. Blackboard bold should be confined
>> to the classroom.
>> What do you think? Should Bbb avoided in type?
>> Thanks
>> Javier
>> -----------------------------
>> http://www.texytipografia.com
>>
>
> I don't think so, it's too widely used in mathematics.
>
> For most mathematicians \mathbb{R} is the real numbers wheres \mathbf{R}
> can be all sorts of things, ideals, groups, etc.

Yes and this reasoning might have influenced the good people behind the
CMoS. In the 15th edition (14.12) it says:
[...] Open-faced (blackboard) symbols are reserved for familiar systems
of numbers: \mathbb{N} for the natural numbers, [...].

The preface of the 15th edition mentions that the chapter on math has been
almost totaly rewritten.
--
Morten

Lars Madsen

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 9:49:32 AM8/10/05
to

<<hitting my self in the head>>

I even have CMoS, 15th edition on the shelf behind me.

Timothy Murphy

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 7:01:59 PM8/10/05
to
Javier Bezos wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) says (13.14):
>
> [...] blackboard bold, in which part of the letter
> is doubled when it stands for what would be boldfaced
> in type [...]. Blackboard bold should be confined
> to the classroom.
>
> What do you think? Should Bbb avoided in type?

I'm afraid this is more a reflection on the Chicago Manual
than on blackboard bold.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Brooks Moses

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 4:07:17 AM8/11/05
to
Morten Høgholm wrote:
> Yes and this reasoning might have influenced the good people behind the
> CMoS. In the 15th edition (14.12) it says:
> [...] Open-faced (blackboard) symbols are reserved for familiar systems
> of numbers: \mathbb{N} for the natural numbers, [...].
>
> The preface of the 15th edition mentions that the chapter on math has been
> almost totaly rewritten.

Thank you for that comment; it probably saved me a notable bit of
annoyance, as I have recently been planning to get a copy of the Chicago
Manual of Style, and had been strongly considering saving money and
getting a used older edition.

- Brooks


--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.

0 new messages