[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

**To**:*Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>***Subject**:**Re: Inverted (=reflected) N****From**:*bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>***Date**: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 15:49:54 -0500 (EST)**Cc**:*tech-support@MATH.AMS.ORG, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk*

thanks very much for the reference, chris. but ... The glyph used there is, like \Qinv and \Ginv in mewmath.dtx, ... what is this "mewmath.dtx"? have i been sleeping through something? (i'll take a look in newmath.dtx though.) i don't know why the "spindly sans serif", but it's what we were apparently asked to use for the similar letters in amsfonts. regarding the "reflected" vs. "rotated" vs. "inverted", the symbols known to tex as \forall and \exists used to be known here (for an earlier system) as "inva" and "reve", for "inverted" and "reversed" (i.e. reflected). (hmmm ... they're also sans serif, if not quite as spindly ...) i think this would probably be a good occasion to impose some uniformity on this notation. proposal: - Xinv -- inverted top-to-bottom - Xrefl -- mirrored left-to-right - Xrot -- rotated 180\deg so that the top is now the bottom, etc. are there any other existing paradigms? -- bb

- Prev by Date:
**Inverted (=reflected) N** - Next by Date:
**Re: Inverted (=reflected) N** - Prev by thread:
**Inverted (=reflected) N** - Next by thread:
**Re: Inverted (=reflected) N** - Index(es):