Getting closer to completion

I finally fixed most of the issues that were preventing me from building my dissertation using Gentzen. Here is an inference rule out of my dissertation, using Gentzen:

Gentzen version of an inference rule

And here is the same rule using the Euler package:

Euler version of an inference rule

Unfortunately, the column width of this theme does not allow making the images much wider. It is fairly difficult to get a good idea of the differences by looking at them. So I've also provide page 29 of my dissertation in both versions: Gentzen and Euler. It is also a good way to emphasize that, on a printed page, many of the details I've agonized over are pretty subtle if you are not looking for them. Some of the spacing is off in places in the Gentzen version, but I need to investigate further whether that is because of the font itself or my macros for it.

However, I've also provide an update version of my table of symbols:

Gentzen prototype image of the day

Notably, I've finished \leadsto, \in, \bullet, and \cdot. I've included \star from one of the LaTeX symbol fonts I believe.

In any event, I am certainly interested in feedback — assuming there are opinions on how it is looking.

6 Comments »

  1. Joshua Dunfield said,

    November 1, 2007 @ 11:17 pm

    I like \top, \bot, \exists. \forall looks like it’s tilted slightly to the right. (I don’t find \forall and \exists jarring, but that could be due to having seen too many old logic books recently.) The \in looks too “perfect” compared to the Euler Greek letters, etc., despite probably being an improvement on the standard one.

  2. Brian said,

    November 2, 2007 @ 9:15 am

    [Looking at printed samples.] I find \forall a bit lopsided. \star and \longrightarrow are noticeably nicer in Gentzen. I think I might prefer a larger \vdash, but other symbols seem okay.

  3. washburn said,

    November 2, 2007 @ 10:31 am

    I like \top, \bot, \exists.

    Does that imply you do not like the others (except what you have said about \forall and \in) or just that you have no opinion? If it is the former, can you elaborate?

    \forall looks like it’s tilted slightly to the right.

    Indeed it is, as the regular Euler A is tilted, and therefor remained when I modified it. I kind of like the tilt a little, but I would agree that it is probably too pronounced.

    The \in looks too “perfect” compared to the Euler Greek letters, etc., despite probably being an improvement on the standard one.

    By too perfect you mean that it does not seem handwritten, or that it is too geometrical?

  4. washburn said,

    November 2, 2007 @ 10:34 am

    I find \forall a bit lopsided.

    Discussed that above.

    \star and \longrightarrow are noticeably nicer in Gentzen.

    Thanks. Part of the reason for that is that \longrightarrow is constructed out of a dash and \rightarrow normally and it apparently does not quite line up right in my dissertation. I made\longrightarrow using a single glyph.

    I think I might prefer a larger \vdash, but other symbols seem okay.

    Yeah, I it does seem like it stands out quite enough. However, I think the horizontal portion in the Euler version seems too long. I’ll have to see what I can come up with.

  5. Joshua Dunfield said,

    November 4, 2007 @ 1:10 am

    Does that imply you do not like the others (except what you have said about \forall and \in) or just that you have no opinion? If it is the former, can you elaborate?

    I don’t have an opinion…the standard versions of \top, \bot, \forall, and \exists particularly annoy me, especially in slides—in fact I’ve used “poor man’s bold” for them—so I’m a bit more familiar with those.

    I kind of like the tilt a little, but I would agree that it is probably too pronounced.

    It’s a letter (by birth, at least?) so I guess it should tilt, it’s just not what I’m used to seeing.

    By too perfect you mean that it [\in] does not seem handwritten, or that it is too geometrical?

    I’d say both, but I’m not seeing the distinction. It doesn’t look like something the imaginary calligraphic mathematician who wrote, say, the Euler ‘e’ would write. But I guess that’s no more precise than what I said originally. 🙂

  6. washburn said,

    November 5, 2007 @ 10:07 pm

    I’d say both, but I’m not seeing the distinction.

    There is not much of one. I was mostly just saying it two different ways in case one didn’t make sense.

    It doesn’t look like something the imaginary calligraphic mathematician who wrote, say, the Euler ‘e’ would write. But I guess that’s no more precise than what I said originally. 🙂

    That is what I thought you were getting at, but I was not quite sure. In general I have been wondering whether some of the other symbols had too little of a handwritten calligraphic look. Perhaps with \in it is more jarring because it is somewhere in between, while things like \top and \vdash a very clearly geometric (unless you are zoomed in and observe the angled tips).

    I will have to think about what strokes someone might make when writing \in with a calligraphic pen. Unfortunately, I tend to write even my letters differently than most people, so I am not sure how well that will work out.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment