[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- To: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
- Subject: Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- From: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 22:40:29 GMT
- Cc: tech-support@MATH.AMS.ORG, math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk
b wrote ---
> regarding the "reflected" vs. "rotated" vs. "inverted", the symbols
> known to tex as \forall and \exists used to be known here (for an
> earlier system) as "inva" and "reve", for "inverted" and "reversed"
> (i.e. reflected). (hmmm ... they're also sans serif, if not quite
> as spindly ...)
Yes, I suspect that the spindly style does come from these two which
(I guess) have been around for longer...but as you say, the
spindle-factor did seem to get increased.
>
> i think this would probably be a good occasion to impose some uniformity
> on this notation. proposal:
> - Xinv -- inverted top-to-bottom
> - Xrefl -- mirrored left-to-right
> - Xrot -- rotated 180\deg so that the top is now the bottom, etc.
I would be happy with those names: of course, for letters with some
symmetry (eg N, A, E) two of these names will both be applicable to
the same glyph. Thus one also needs some precedence rule to get a
canonical name. {See, I can still apply some of that group theory:-)
chris