[texhax] \ldots v. \cdots

Lars Madsen daleif at imf.au.dk
Tue Mar 3 20:21:08 CET 2009

Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> 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 
>         commands 
>         * \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
>         \[\int_{A_1}\int_{A_2}\dotsi\].

well aware, but try teaching that to users...


More information about the texhax mailing list