Do ℕ, mathbb{N}, BbbN, symbb{N} effectively differ, and is there a “canonical” specification of the...

How should I replace vector<uint8_t>::const_iterator in an API?

The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551

Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?

Why is superheterodyning better than direct conversion?

Do warforged have souls?

How to remove this toilet supply line that seems to have no nut?

"... to apply for a visa" or "... and applied for a visa"?

Can a novice safely splice in wire to lengthen 5V charging cable?

What aspect of planet Earth must be changed to prevent the industrial revolution?

Searching for a differential characteristic (differential cryptanalysis)

Wall plug outlet change

Match Roman Numerals

What is this lever in Argentinian toilets?

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

Who or what is the being for whom Being is a question for Heidegger?

How do I add random spotting to the same face in cycles?

Did God make two great lights or did He make the great light two?

Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive

How to split my screen on my Macbook Air?

University's motivation for having tenure-track positions

Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?

Is every episode of "Where are my Pants?" identical?

Windows 10: How to Lock (not sleep) laptop on lid close?

Can the prologue be the backstory of your main character?



Do ℕ, mathbb{N}, BbbN, symbb{N} effectively differ, and is there a “canonical” specification of the naturals?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Using `mathbb` fonts from other packagesmathbb{0} and mathbb{1} with mathdesign/Utopia?mathbb{0} and mathbb{1} without affecting mathbb{R} and mathbb{N}How to produce a character like 𝕜 (the nonexisting mathbb{k})?mathbb generates strange characters for numbers and greek lettersXeLaTeX, Latin Modern, mathbb and mathcalWhy does mathbb{N_0} render the 0 as nvdash?Is there a “new” canonical test for fonts and languages?Is there a blackboard version of Omega (the capital letter)Typesetting a computer-science book with XeLaTeX+biber












9















Continuing https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/22167/, as far as I understand, all the four of , mathbb{N}, BbbN, symbb{N} work now, and BbbN is advised against. Is there any reasonably default context (e.g., a self-constructed context that would redefine these macros and symbols wouldn't count) in which some of , mathbb{N}, BbbN, symbb{N} produce different results than some others when using amssymb+unicode-math+{xe|lua}latex? Compiling the example



documentclass{book}
usepackage{fontspec}
usepackage{amssymb}
usepackage{unicode-math}
usepackage{microtype}
setmainfont{TeX Gyre Termes}
setsansfont{TeX Gyre Heros}[Scale=0.88]
setmonofont{TeX Gyre Cursor}
setmathfont{TeX Gyre Termes Math}
setmathfont{Asana Math}[
range={setminus},
]
setmathfont{XITSMath-Regular}[
Extension=.otf,
range={"2A3E},
BoldFont=XITSMath-Bold,
]
begin{document}
(ℕ mathbb{N} BbbN symbb{N})
end{document}


with xelatex, e.g., I get visibly indistinguishable letters




ℕℕℕℕ




I cannot distinguish them either when I put them as subscripts or superscripts.



Moreover, is there a consensus in the {xe|lua}[La]TeX world to name any of these ways as the standard way to denote the set of natural numbers?



(Of course, I leave aside the question whether the zero should belong to this set or not; it could flame up a war here and is up to the author anyway.)










share|improve this question



























    9















    Continuing https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/22167/, as far as I understand, all the four of , mathbb{N}, BbbN, symbb{N} work now, and BbbN is advised against. Is there any reasonably default context (e.g., a self-constructed context that would redefine these macros and symbols wouldn't count) in which some of , mathbb{N}, BbbN, symbb{N} produce different results than some others when using amssymb+unicode-math+{xe|lua}latex? Compiling the example



    documentclass{book}
    usepackage{fontspec}
    usepackage{amssymb}
    usepackage{unicode-math}
    usepackage{microtype}
    setmainfont{TeX Gyre Termes}
    setsansfont{TeX Gyre Heros}[Scale=0.88]
    setmonofont{TeX Gyre Cursor}
    setmathfont{TeX Gyre Termes Math}
    setmathfont{Asana Math}[
    range={setminus},
    ]
    setmathfont{XITSMath-Regular}[
    Extension=.otf,
    range={"2A3E},
    BoldFont=XITSMath-Bold,
    ]
    begin{document}
    (ℕ mathbb{N} BbbN symbb{N})
    end{document}


    with xelatex, e.g., I get visibly indistinguishable letters




    ℕℕℕℕ




    I cannot distinguish them either when I put them as subscripts or superscripts.



    Moreover, is there a consensus in the {xe|lua}[La]TeX world to name any of these ways as the standard way to denote the set of natural numbers?



    (Of course, I leave aside the question whether the zero should belong to this set or not; it could flame up a war here and is up to the author anyway.)










    share|improve this question

























      9












      9








      9








      Continuing https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/22167/, as far as I understand, all the four of , mathbb{N}, BbbN, symbb{N} work now, and BbbN is advised against. Is there any reasonably default context (e.g., a self-constructed context that would redefine these macros and symbols wouldn't count) in which some of , mathbb{N}, BbbN, symbb{N} produce different results than some others when using amssymb+unicode-math+{xe|lua}latex? Compiling the example



      documentclass{book}
      usepackage{fontspec}
      usepackage{amssymb}
      usepackage{unicode-math}
      usepackage{microtype}
      setmainfont{TeX Gyre Termes}
      setsansfont{TeX Gyre Heros}[Scale=0.88]
      setmonofont{TeX Gyre Cursor}
      setmathfont{TeX Gyre Termes Math}
      setmathfont{Asana Math}[
      range={setminus},
      ]
      setmathfont{XITSMath-Regular}[
      Extension=.otf,
      range={"2A3E},
      BoldFont=XITSMath-Bold,
      ]
      begin{document}
      (ℕ mathbb{N} BbbN symbb{N})
      end{document}


      with xelatex, e.g., I get visibly indistinguishable letters




      ℕℕℕℕ




      I cannot distinguish them either when I put them as subscripts or superscripts.



      Moreover, is there a consensus in the {xe|lua}[La]TeX world to name any of these ways as the standard way to denote the set of natural numbers?



      (Of course, I leave aside the question whether the zero should belong to this set or not; it could flame up a war here and is up to the author anyway.)










      share|improve this question














      Continuing https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/22167/, as far as I understand, all the four of , mathbb{N}, BbbN, symbb{N} work now, and BbbN is advised against. Is there any reasonably default context (e.g., a self-constructed context that would redefine these macros and symbols wouldn't count) in which some of , mathbb{N}, BbbN, symbb{N} produce different results than some others when using amssymb+unicode-math+{xe|lua}latex? Compiling the example



      documentclass{book}
      usepackage{fontspec}
      usepackage{amssymb}
      usepackage{unicode-math}
      usepackage{microtype}
      setmainfont{TeX Gyre Termes}
      setsansfont{TeX Gyre Heros}[Scale=0.88]
      setmonofont{TeX Gyre Cursor}
      setmathfont{TeX Gyre Termes Math}
      setmathfont{Asana Math}[
      range={setminus},
      ]
      setmathfont{XITSMath-Regular}[
      Extension=.otf,
      range={"2A3E},
      BoldFont=XITSMath-Bold,
      ]
      begin{document}
      (ℕ mathbb{N} BbbN symbb{N})
      end{document}


      with xelatex, e.g., I get visibly indistinguishable letters




      ℕℕℕℕ




      I cannot distinguish them either when I put them as subscripts or superscripts.



      Moreover, is there a consensus in the {xe|lua}[La]TeX world to name any of these ways as the standard way to denote the set of natural numbers?



      (Of course, I leave aside the question whether the zero should belong to this set or not; it could flame up a war here and is up to the author anyway.)







      xetex symbols unicode-math amssymb blackboard






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 2 days ago









      user49915user49915

      819122




      819122






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          12














          The difference is mainly historical. BbbN was created for the original amsfonts, pre-LaTeX; it should be considered obsolete now.
          (Oops! @egreg points out in a comment that BbbN has been defined for unicode-math, so I was thinking of Bbb{N}. That surely should be considered obsolete.)
          The original LaTeX equivalent is mathbb{N}, and should still be reliable.



          symbb{N} was defined for fonts developed after the blackboard bold alphabet was added to Unicode.



          The symbol itself (which I can't represent because it's not available on the aged laptop I'm using) depends on having a utf-8 capable input device, and is not available for pdflatex, which is still limited to 8-bit input.



          All forms are equivalent, and the one you use depends on which flavor of LaTeX you're using. There may also be some restrictions associated with the publisher, if you're submitting your document for publication.



          This may not give an unambiguous answer to your question, but it should give you some idea of how the development of the blackboard bold fonts and their support affects the decision of which should be used in what circumstances.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            BbbN is a specific command in unicode-math. The command Bbb (with an argument) is obsolete.

            – egreg
            yesterday



















          10














          If you modify your file to have



          showoutput
          (ℕ mathbb{N} BbbN symbb{N} showlists)


          Then you get



          mathord
          .fam0 ℕ
          mathord
          .fam0 ℕ
          mathord
          .fam0 ℕ
          mathord
          .fam0 ℕ
          ### horizontal mode entered at line 20


          Four identical N, same font and same math class (mathord).



          I would say use if you like Unicode input and symbb{N} if you prefer ASCII TeX command markup. So they are are the preferred forms, but as they are all the same thing it doesn't matter much which you use.



          Of course other font setups may make things differ. In general symbxx will give you characters from the same font using the math alphabet ranges, whereas mathxx might do that or might (as in classic tex) use a different font.






          share|improve this answer

































            5














            tl;dr



            It's completely the same.



            Why do those four inputs produce the same output?



            In unicode-math-table.tex we find



            UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}


            Every Unicode code point relevant for math has a name, so that unicode-math can do, in this case, the equivalent of



            Umathchardef`ℕ = "7 "0 "02115


            (the second number could change in case range=bb is used to select a different font for these characters).



            If you add showmathbb to your sample TeX file (after begin{document}), you'll get



            > mathbb=long macro:
            ->symbb .


            This almost answers your question. At least we know that




            1. typing or BbbN is the same

            2. typing mathbb{N} or symbb{N} is the same


            It only remains to discover what's the relationship between the two cases above. Simple: symbb{N} does BbbN. Not really by chaining N to Bbb, but something like that (it's more complicated because one can use range=bb to use a different font for blackboard bold letters).



            Now we know that typing



            $ℕ BbbN mathbb{N} symbb{N}$


            is exactly the same. The alias name mathbb for symbb is for backwards compatibility with older code.



            Some explanation is in order. unicode-math used to have just mathXX commands. However, it was realized that distinguishing between mathXX and symXX is necessary. The first form is about words used in math, the second form for single characters (and doesn't enforce ligatures if used for more characters in a row); these forms can point to different fonts. Typically, for instance, mathbf will use the boldface text font, whereas symbf{x} will use mbfx, pointing to U+1D431 in the math font.



            While the distinction is necessary for boldface, in the case of blackboard bold there is no usage of it as a text font, so no distinction is made between mathbb and symbb, by default. You (or a package) might redefine mathbb to do something else (not that I recommend it).



            What's the preferred form?



            I'd avoid BbbN and probably prefer symbb for newer documents, unless it's possible to directly type in .






            share|improve this answer


























            • Instead of UnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}, do you probably mean UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}?

              – user49915
              yesterday








            • 1





              @user49915 Yes, indeed. Let me fix it: I copied the first match, but didn't notice the case.

              – egreg
              yesterday












            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "85"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484425%2fdo-%25e2%2584%2595-mathbbn-bbbn-symbbn-effectively-differ-and-is-there-a-canonical%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            12














            The difference is mainly historical. BbbN was created for the original amsfonts, pre-LaTeX; it should be considered obsolete now.
            (Oops! @egreg points out in a comment that BbbN has been defined for unicode-math, so I was thinking of Bbb{N}. That surely should be considered obsolete.)
            The original LaTeX equivalent is mathbb{N}, and should still be reliable.



            symbb{N} was defined for fonts developed after the blackboard bold alphabet was added to Unicode.



            The symbol itself (which I can't represent because it's not available on the aged laptop I'm using) depends on having a utf-8 capable input device, and is not available for pdflatex, which is still limited to 8-bit input.



            All forms are equivalent, and the one you use depends on which flavor of LaTeX you're using. There may also be some restrictions associated with the publisher, if you're submitting your document for publication.



            This may not give an unambiguous answer to your question, but it should give you some idea of how the development of the blackboard bold fonts and their support affects the decision of which should be used in what circumstances.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              BbbN is a specific command in unicode-math. The command Bbb (with an argument) is obsolete.

              – egreg
              yesterday
















            12














            The difference is mainly historical. BbbN was created for the original amsfonts, pre-LaTeX; it should be considered obsolete now.
            (Oops! @egreg points out in a comment that BbbN has been defined for unicode-math, so I was thinking of Bbb{N}. That surely should be considered obsolete.)
            The original LaTeX equivalent is mathbb{N}, and should still be reliable.



            symbb{N} was defined for fonts developed after the blackboard bold alphabet was added to Unicode.



            The symbol itself (which I can't represent because it's not available on the aged laptop I'm using) depends on having a utf-8 capable input device, and is not available for pdflatex, which is still limited to 8-bit input.



            All forms are equivalent, and the one you use depends on which flavor of LaTeX you're using. There may also be some restrictions associated with the publisher, if you're submitting your document for publication.



            This may not give an unambiguous answer to your question, but it should give you some idea of how the development of the blackboard bold fonts and their support affects the decision of which should be used in what circumstances.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              BbbN is a specific command in unicode-math. The command Bbb (with an argument) is obsolete.

              – egreg
              yesterday














            12












            12








            12







            The difference is mainly historical. BbbN was created for the original amsfonts, pre-LaTeX; it should be considered obsolete now.
            (Oops! @egreg points out in a comment that BbbN has been defined for unicode-math, so I was thinking of Bbb{N}. That surely should be considered obsolete.)
            The original LaTeX equivalent is mathbb{N}, and should still be reliable.



            symbb{N} was defined for fonts developed after the blackboard bold alphabet was added to Unicode.



            The symbol itself (which I can't represent because it's not available on the aged laptop I'm using) depends on having a utf-8 capable input device, and is not available for pdflatex, which is still limited to 8-bit input.



            All forms are equivalent, and the one you use depends on which flavor of LaTeX you're using. There may also be some restrictions associated with the publisher, if you're submitting your document for publication.



            This may not give an unambiguous answer to your question, but it should give you some idea of how the development of the blackboard bold fonts and their support affects the decision of which should be used in what circumstances.






            share|improve this answer















            The difference is mainly historical. BbbN was created for the original amsfonts, pre-LaTeX; it should be considered obsolete now.
            (Oops! @egreg points out in a comment that BbbN has been defined for unicode-math, so I was thinking of Bbb{N}. That surely should be considered obsolete.)
            The original LaTeX equivalent is mathbb{N}, and should still be reliable.



            symbb{N} was defined for fonts developed after the blackboard bold alphabet was added to Unicode.



            The symbol itself (which I can't represent because it's not available on the aged laptop I'm using) depends on having a utf-8 capable input device, and is not available for pdflatex, which is still limited to 8-bit input.



            All forms are equivalent, and the one you use depends on which flavor of LaTeX you're using. There may also be some restrictions associated with the publisher, if you're submitting your document for publication.



            This may not give an unambiguous answer to your question, but it should give you some idea of how the development of the blackboard bold fonts and their support affects the decision of which should be used in what circumstances.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered 2 days ago









            barbara beetonbarbara beeton

            70.3k9159382




            70.3k9159382








            • 1





              BbbN is a specific command in unicode-math. The command Bbb (with an argument) is obsolete.

              – egreg
              yesterday














            • 1





              BbbN is a specific command in unicode-math. The command Bbb (with an argument) is obsolete.

              – egreg
              yesterday








            1




            1





            BbbN is a specific command in unicode-math. The command Bbb (with an argument) is obsolete.

            – egreg
            yesterday





            BbbN is a specific command in unicode-math. The command Bbb (with an argument) is obsolete.

            – egreg
            yesterday











            10














            If you modify your file to have



            showoutput
            (ℕ mathbb{N} BbbN symbb{N} showlists)


            Then you get



            mathord
            .fam0 ℕ
            mathord
            .fam0 ℕ
            mathord
            .fam0 ℕ
            mathord
            .fam0 ℕ
            ### horizontal mode entered at line 20


            Four identical N, same font and same math class (mathord).



            I would say use if you like Unicode input and symbb{N} if you prefer ASCII TeX command markup. So they are are the preferred forms, but as they are all the same thing it doesn't matter much which you use.



            Of course other font setups may make things differ. In general symbxx will give you characters from the same font using the math alphabet ranges, whereas mathxx might do that or might (as in classic tex) use a different font.






            share|improve this answer






























              10














              If you modify your file to have



              showoutput
              (ℕ mathbb{N} BbbN symbb{N} showlists)


              Then you get



              mathord
              .fam0 ℕ
              mathord
              .fam0 ℕ
              mathord
              .fam0 ℕ
              mathord
              .fam0 ℕ
              ### horizontal mode entered at line 20


              Four identical N, same font and same math class (mathord).



              I would say use if you like Unicode input and symbb{N} if you prefer ASCII TeX command markup. So they are are the preferred forms, but as they are all the same thing it doesn't matter much which you use.



              Of course other font setups may make things differ. In general symbxx will give you characters from the same font using the math alphabet ranges, whereas mathxx might do that or might (as in classic tex) use a different font.






              share|improve this answer




























                10












                10








                10







                If you modify your file to have



                showoutput
                (ℕ mathbb{N} BbbN symbb{N} showlists)


                Then you get



                mathord
                .fam0 ℕ
                mathord
                .fam0 ℕ
                mathord
                .fam0 ℕ
                mathord
                .fam0 ℕ
                ### horizontal mode entered at line 20


                Four identical N, same font and same math class (mathord).



                I would say use if you like Unicode input and symbb{N} if you prefer ASCII TeX command markup. So they are are the preferred forms, but as they are all the same thing it doesn't matter much which you use.



                Of course other font setups may make things differ. In general symbxx will give you characters from the same font using the math alphabet ranges, whereas mathxx might do that or might (as in classic tex) use a different font.






                share|improve this answer















                If you modify your file to have



                showoutput
                (ℕ mathbb{N} BbbN symbb{N} showlists)


                Then you get



                mathord
                .fam0 ℕ
                mathord
                .fam0 ℕ
                mathord
                .fam0 ℕ
                mathord
                .fam0 ℕ
                ### horizontal mode entered at line 20


                Four identical N, same font and same math class (mathord).



                I would say use if you like Unicode input and symbb{N} if you prefer ASCII TeX command markup. So they are are the preferred forms, but as they are all the same thing it doesn't matter much which you use.



                Of course other font setups may make things differ. In general symbxx will give you characters from the same font using the math alphabet ranges, whereas mathxx might do that or might (as in classic tex) use a different font.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited yesterday

























                answered 2 days ago









                David CarlisleDavid Carlisle

                499k4111451895




                499k4111451895























                    5














                    tl;dr



                    It's completely the same.



                    Why do those four inputs produce the same output?



                    In unicode-math-table.tex we find



                    UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}


                    Every Unicode code point relevant for math has a name, so that unicode-math can do, in this case, the equivalent of



                    Umathchardef`ℕ = "7 "0 "02115


                    (the second number could change in case range=bb is used to select a different font for these characters).



                    If you add showmathbb to your sample TeX file (after begin{document}), you'll get



                    > mathbb=long macro:
                    ->symbb .


                    This almost answers your question. At least we know that




                    1. typing or BbbN is the same

                    2. typing mathbb{N} or symbb{N} is the same


                    It only remains to discover what's the relationship between the two cases above. Simple: symbb{N} does BbbN. Not really by chaining N to Bbb, but something like that (it's more complicated because one can use range=bb to use a different font for blackboard bold letters).



                    Now we know that typing



                    $ℕ BbbN mathbb{N} symbb{N}$


                    is exactly the same. The alias name mathbb for symbb is for backwards compatibility with older code.



                    Some explanation is in order. unicode-math used to have just mathXX commands. However, it was realized that distinguishing between mathXX and symXX is necessary. The first form is about words used in math, the second form for single characters (and doesn't enforce ligatures if used for more characters in a row); these forms can point to different fonts. Typically, for instance, mathbf will use the boldface text font, whereas symbf{x} will use mbfx, pointing to U+1D431 in the math font.



                    While the distinction is necessary for boldface, in the case of blackboard bold there is no usage of it as a text font, so no distinction is made between mathbb and symbb, by default. You (or a package) might redefine mathbb to do something else (not that I recommend it).



                    What's the preferred form?



                    I'd avoid BbbN and probably prefer symbb for newer documents, unless it's possible to directly type in .






                    share|improve this answer


























                    • Instead of UnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}, do you probably mean UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}?

                      – user49915
                      yesterday








                    • 1





                      @user49915 Yes, indeed. Let me fix it: I copied the first match, but didn't notice the case.

                      – egreg
                      yesterday
















                    5














                    tl;dr



                    It's completely the same.



                    Why do those four inputs produce the same output?



                    In unicode-math-table.tex we find



                    UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}


                    Every Unicode code point relevant for math has a name, so that unicode-math can do, in this case, the equivalent of



                    Umathchardef`ℕ = "7 "0 "02115


                    (the second number could change in case range=bb is used to select a different font for these characters).



                    If you add showmathbb to your sample TeX file (after begin{document}), you'll get



                    > mathbb=long macro:
                    ->symbb .


                    This almost answers your question. At least we know that




                    1. typing or BbbN is the same

                    2. typing mathbb{N} or symbb{N} is the same


                    It only remains to discover what's the relationship between the two cases above. Simple: symbb{N} does BbbN. Not really by chaining N to Bbb, but something like that (it's more complicated because one can use range=bb to use a different font for blackboard bold letters).



                    Now we know that typing



                    $ℕ BbbN mathbb{N} symbb{N}$


                    is exactly the same. The alias name mathbb for symbb is for backwards compatibility with older code.



                    Some explanation is in order. unicode-math used to have just mathXX commands. However, it was realized that distinguishing between mathXX and symXX is necessary. The first form is about words used in math, the second form for single characters (and doesn't enforce ligatures if used for more characters in a row); these forms can point to different fonts. Typically, for instance, mathbf will use the boldface text font, whereas symbf{x} will use mbfx, pointing to U+1D431 in the math font.



                    While the distinction is necessary for boldface, in the case of blackboard bold there is no usage of it as a text font, so no distinction is made between mathbb and symbb, by default. You (or a package) might redefine mathbb to do something else (not that I recommend it).



                    What's the preferred form?



                    I'd avoid BbbN and probably prefer symbb for newer documents, unless it's possible to directly type in .






                    share|improve this answer


























                    • Instead of UnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}, do you probably mean UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}?

                      – user49915
                      yesterday








                    • 1





                      @user49915 Yes, indeed. Let me fix it: I copied the first match, but didn't notice the case.

                      – egreg
                      yesterday














                    5












                    5








                    5







                    tl;dr



                    It's completely the same.



                    Why do those four inputs produce the same output?



                    In unicode-math-table.tex we find



                    UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}


                    Every Unicode code point relevant for math has a name, so that unicode-math can do, in this case, the equivalent of



                    Umathchardef`ℕ = "7 "0 "02115


                    (the second number could change in case range=bb is used to select a different font for these characters).



                    If you add showmathbb to your sample TeX file (after begin{document}), you'll get



                    > mathbb=long macro:
                    ->symbb .


                    This almost answers your question. At least we know that




                    1. typing or BbbN is the same

                    2. typing mathbb{N} or symbb{N} is the same


                    It only remains to discover what's the relationship between the two cases above. Simple: symbb{N} does BbbN. Not really by chaining N to Bbb, but something like that (it's more complicated because one can use range=bb to use a different font for blackboard bold letters).



                    Now we know that typing



                    $ℕ BbbN mathbb{N} symbb{N}$


                    is exactly the same. The alias name mathbb for symbb is for backwards compatibility with older code.



                    Some explanation is in order. unicode-math used to have just mathXX commands. However, it was realized that distinguishing between mathXX and symXX is necessary. The first form is about words used in math, the second form for single characters (and doesn't enforce ligatures if used for more characters in a row); these forms can point to different fonts. Typically, for instance, mathbf will use the boldface text font, whereas symbf{x} will use mbfx, pointing to U+1D431 in the math font.



                    While the distinction is necessary for boldface, in the case of blackboard bold there is no usage of it as a text font, so no distinction is made between mathbb and symbb, by default. You (or a package) might redefine mathbb to do something else (not that I recommend it).



                    What's the preferred form?



                    I'd avoid BbbN and probably prefer symbb for newer documents, unless it's possible to directly type in .






                    share|improve this answer















                    tl;dr



                    It's completely the same.



                    Why do those four inputs produce the same output?



                    In unicode-math-table.tex we find



                    UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}


                    Every Unicode code point relevant for math has a name, so that unicode-math can do, in this case, the equivalent of



                    Umathchardef`ℕ = "7 "0 "02115


                    (the second number could change in case range=bb is used to select a different font for these characters).



                    If you add showmathbb to your sample TeX file (after begin{document}), you'll get



                    > mathbb=long macro:
                    ->symbb .


                    This almost answers your question. At least we know that




                    1. typing or BbbN is the same

                    2. typing mathbb{N} or symbb{N} is the same


                    It only remains to discover what's the relationship between the two cases above. Simple: symbb{N} does BbbN. Not really by chaining N to Bbb, but something like that (it's more complicated because one can use range=bb to use a different font for blackboard bold letters).



                    Now we know that typing



                    $ℕ BbbN mathbb{N} symbb{N}$


                    is exactly the same. The alias name mathbb for symbb is for backwards compatibility with older code.



                    Some explanation is in order. unicode-math used to have just mathXX commands. However, it was realized that distinguishing between mathXX and symXX is necessary. The first form is about words used in math, the second form for single characters (and doesn't enforce ligatures if used for more characters in a row); these forms can point to different fonts. Typically, for instance, mathbf will use the boldface text font, whereas symbf{x} will use mbfx, pointing to U+1D431 in the math font.



                    While the distinction is necessary for boldface, in the case of blackboard bold there is no usage of it as a text font, so no distinction is made between mathbb and symbb, by default. You (or a package) might redefine mathbb to do something else (not that I recommend it).



                    What's the preferred form?



                    I'd avoid BbbN and probably prefer symbb for newer documents, unless it's possible to directly type in .







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited yesterday

























                    answered yesterday









                    egregegreg

                    734k8919323256




                    734k8919323256













                    • Instead of UnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}, do you probably mean UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}?

                      – user49915
                      yesterday








                    • 1





                      @user49915 Yes, indeed. Let me fix it: I copied the first match, but didn't notice the case.

                      – egreg
                      yesterday



















                    • Instead of UnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}, do you probably mean UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}?

                      – user49915
                      yesterday








                    • 1





                      @user49915 Yes, indeed. Let me fix it: I copied the first match, but didn't notice the case.

                      – egreg
                      yesterday

















                    Instead of UnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}, do you probably mean UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}?

                    – user49915
                    yesterday







                    Instead of UnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}, do you probably mean UnicodeMathSymbol{"02115}{BbbN}{mathalpha}{/bbb n, open face n}?

                    – user49915
                    yesterday






                    1




                    1





                    @user49915 Yes, indeed. Let me fix it: I copied the first match, but didn't notice the case.

                    – egreg
                    yesterday





                    @user49915 Yes, indeed. Let me fix it: I copied the first match, but didn't notice the case.

                    – egreg
                    yesterday


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484425%2fdo-%25e2%2584%2595-mathbbn-bbbn-symbbn-effectively-differ-and-is-there-a-canonical%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Couldn't open a raw socket. Error: Permission denied (13) (nmap)Is it possible to run networking commands...

                    VNC viewer RFB protocol error: bad desktop size 0x0I Cannot Type the Key 'd' (lowercase) in VNC Viewer...

                    Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll? Announcing the arrival of...