[texhax] \ldots v. \cdots

Karl Ove Hufthammer karl at huftis.org
Tue Mar 3 10:31:09 CET 2009

P. R. Stanley:

> I've come across both \ldots and \cdots in typesetting series in \sum
> -- \{1 + 2 + 3 + ldots + n\}. What would the list recommend?

I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the AMS recommendations. The document 
‘Short Math Guide for LaTeX’ at http://www.ams.org/tex/amslatex.html says

        4.6. Dots For preferred placement of ellipsis dots 
        (raised or on-line) in various contexts there is no 
        general consensus. It may therefore be considered a 
        matter of taste. By using the semantically oriented 
        * \dotsc for “dots with commas” 
        * \dotsb for “dots with binary operators/relations” 
        * \dotsm for “multiplication dots” 
        * \dotsi for “dots with integrals” 
        * \dotso for “other dots” (none of the above) 
        instead of \ldots and \cdots, you make it possible for 
        your document to be adapted to different conventions on 
        the fly, in case (for example) you have to submit it to 
        a publisher who insists on following house tradition in 
        this respect. The default treatment for the various kinds
        follows American Mathematical Society conventions:
        We have the series $A_1,A_2,\dotsc$,
        the regional sum $A_1+A_2+\dotsb$,
        the orthogonal product $A_1A_2\dotsm$,
        and the infinite integral

Karl Ove Hufthammer

More information about the texhax mailing list