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.

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.

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.

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?