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
Continuing https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/22167/, as far as I understand, all the four of ℕ
, 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 ℕ
, 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
add a comment |
Continuing https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/22167/, as far as I understand, all the four of ℕ
, 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 ℕ
, 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
add a comment |
Continuing https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/22167/, as far as I understand, all the four of ℕ
, 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 ℕ
, 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
Continuing https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/22167/, as far as I understand, all the four of ℕ
, 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 ℕ
, 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
xetex symbols unicode-math amssymb blackboard
asked 2 days ago
user49915user49915
819122
819122
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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.
1
BbbN
is a specific command inunicode-math
. The commandBbb
(with an argument) is obsolete.
– egreg
yesterday
add a comment |
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 ℕ
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.
add a comment |
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
- typing
ℕ
orBbbN
is the same - typing
mathbb{N}
orsymbb{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 ℕ
.
Instead ofUnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}
, do you probably meanUnicodeMathSymbol{"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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
1
BbbN
is a specific command inunicode-math
. The commandBbb
(with an argument) is obsolete.
– egreg
yesterday
add a comment |
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.
1
BbbN
is a specific command inunicode-math
. The commandBbb
(with an argument) is obsolete.
– egreg
yesterday
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
barbara beetonbarbara beeton
70.3k9159382
70.3k9159382
1
BbbN
is a specific command inunicode-math
. The commandBbb
(with an argument) is obsolete.
– egreg
yesterday
add a comment |
1
BbbN
is a specific command inunicode-math
. The commandBbb
(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
add a comment |
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 ℕ
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.
add a comment |
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 ℕ
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.
add a comment |
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 ℕ
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.
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 ℕ
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.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
David CarlisleDavid Carlisle
499k4111451895
499k4111451895
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
- typing
ℕ
orBbbN
is the same - typing
mathbb{N}
orsymbb{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 ℕ
.
Instead ofUnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}
, do you probably meanUnicodeMathSymbol{"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
add a comment |
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
- typing
ℕ
orBbbN
is the same - typing
mathbb{N}
orsymbb{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 ℕ
.
Instead ofUnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}
, do you probably meanUnicodeMathSymbol{"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
add a comment |
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
- typing
ℕ
orBbbN
is the same - typing
mathbb{N}
orsymbb{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 ℕ
.
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
- typing
ℕ
orBbbN
is the same - typing
mathbb{N}
orsymbb{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 ℕ
.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
egregegreg
734k8919323256
734k8919323256
Instead ofUnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}
, do you probably meanUnicodeMathSymbol{"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
add a comment |
Instead ofUnicodeMathSymbol{"1D55F}{Bbbn}{mathalpha}{mathematical double-struck small n}
, do you probably meanUnicodeMathSymbol{"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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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