AMS Euler compared with Computer Modern…

]]>\newlength{\zzsplatboldwidth}

\newcommand{\xsplatbold}[2]{\settowidth{\zzsplatboldwidth}{{#2}}{#2}\addtolength{\zzsplatboldwidth}{-#1}\hspace{-\zzsplatboldwidth}\raisebox{#1}{{#2}}}

e.g.:

\newcommand{\splatbold}[1]{\xsplatbold{-0.04mm}{#1}}

\newcommand{\splatoplus}{\splatbold{\oplus}}

This is pretty hideous, but hideous beats unreadable-from-the-back-of-the-room. Obviously I’d prefer to have properly designed symbols.

]]>Turnstile and equivalence bother me the least of the five imported symbols, possibly because it’s easiest for me to think of those as purely geometric. Yeah, they could use a little more weight, but it’s not as jarring as up-arrow and forall. The star, curiously, is the one that looks completely out of place to me.

So what’s the plan? Your post the other day expressed, if I may generalize, some uncertainty about the simple geometric forms. What are you doing about the complex geometrics (forall and up-arrow) and the nongeometrics like the star?

]]>