[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Rob Beezer wrote: > On Mar 25, 2:05 pm, John H Palmieri wrote: >> I intend it to be used only for those circumstances where reasonable >> people might want to switch from one choice to the other, so I tried >> to change \mathbf to \Bold only for ZZ, RR, QQ, CC, a

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 2:05 pm, John H Palmieri wrote: > let me clarify one thing: I'm not trying to persuade everyone to > change to mathbf. No, I think it is obvious that you are trying to accommodate both camps (which I applaud). > Maybe a setting in an init.sage file?  How do you use that file?  Can >

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 2:06 pm, John H Palmieri wrote: > > I think I may have figured this out, but it will require patching > jsMath: we need to add a font to the spkg, I think. See . John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to t

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 1:43 pm, John H Palmieri wrote: > On Mar 25, 1:06 pm, Jason Grout wrote: > > > John H Palmieri wrote: > > > > Somewhat seriously, I have another argument against using blackboard > > > bold fonts: I can't get them to work with jsMath.  I think I have all > > > of the appropriate fonts

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Rob Beezer wrote: > Hi John, Hi Rob, > I've been following this thread, and read the discussion on Trac at > #5610.  I've been partial to blackboard bold, but after the discussion > here am considering going back to bold.  In my open-source linear- > algebra book, this will

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 1:06 pm, Jason Grout wrote: > John H Palmieri wrote: > > > Somewhat seriously, I have another argument against using blackboard > > bold fonts: I can't get them to work with jsMath.  I think I have all > > of the appropriate fonts installed, but when I try to view something > > typeset

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

Hi John, I've been following this thread, and read the discussion on Trac at #5610. I've been partial to blackboard bold, but after the discussion here am considering going back to bold. In my open-source linear- algebra book, this will be trivial, since I can go into a single *.sty file and ma

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

John H Palmieri wrote: > On Mar 25, 10:05 am, kcrisman wrote: >> More seriously, I think that for some people the distinction between Z >> and boldface Z might be hard to pick out (visually, that is). \mathbb >> {Z} is unambiguous, has a nice chalkboard equivalent, and so on. I >> know at least

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 8:44 pm, John H Palmieri wrote: > Meanwhile, your posts leave the impression of you insulting people > whom you've never met.  I don't have any interest in responding to > you. Sorry, if I was insulting. The topic of blind trust in authorities just hit a button, you know I am German.

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:44 PM, John H Palmieri wrote: > > On Mar 25, 12:12 pm, Henryk Trappmann wrote: >> On Mar 25, 5:20 pm, John H Palmieri wrote: >> >> > On Mar 25, 6:05 am, Henryk Trappmann wrote: >> >> > > Because Bourbaki and Serre said so? >> > > Sorry guys but thats the strangest ju

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 12:12 pm, Henryk Trappmann wrote: > On Mar 25, 5:20 pm, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > On Mar 25, 6:05 am, Henryk Trappmann wrote: > > > > Because Bourbaki and Serre said so? > > > Sorry guys but thats the strangest justificiation Iv ever heard. > > > I don't know quite where you heard

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 2009, at 10:58 AM, John H Palmieri wrote: > On Mar 25, 10:36 am, John H Palmieri wrote: >> >> Somewhat seriously, I have another argument against using blackboard >> bold fonts: I can't get them to work with jsMath. I think I have all >> of the appropriate fonts installed, but when I

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 5:20 pm, John H Palmieri wrote: > On Mar 25, 6:05 am, Henryk Trappmann wrote: > > > Because Bourbaki and Serre said so? > > Sorry guys but thats the strangest justificiation Iv ever heard. > > I don't know quite where you heard it, because it's not what I wrote, > especially the part

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 10:36 am, John H Palmieri wrote: > > Somewhat seriously, I have another argument against using blackboard > bold fonts: I can't get them to work with jsMath.  I think I have all > of the appropriate fonts installed, but when I try to view something > typeset in blackboard bold, I get t

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 10:05 am, kcrisman wrote: > More seriously, I think that for some people the distinction between Z > and boldface Z might be hard to pick out (visually, that is).  \mathbb > {Z} is unambiguous, has a nice chalkboard equivalent, and so on.  I > know at least that trying to get anyone to

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

More seriously, I think that for some people the distinction between Z and boldface Z might be hard to pick out (visually, that is). \mathbb {Z} is unambiguous, has a nice chalkboard equivalent, and so on. I know at least that trying to get anyone to tell the difference between v and bold v in

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

> > > By the way, widespread use is not a convincing argument; many people > > use Z_p to represent the integers mod p, and I will *not* agree that > > this is acceptable usage. > > I'm starting to think this is a lost one... What, you don't find Z_{p} versus Z_{(p)} versus Z_{\{p\}}to be a perf

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:20 PM, John H Palmieri wrote: > > I don't know quite where you heard it, because it's not what I wrote, > especially the part about Bourbaki. However, if a leading > mathematician like Serre expresses an opinion about something, I think > it's worth paying attention. Fo

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Rob Beezer wrote: > I frequently use Sage as a sort of equation editor. If I need a 10 x > 10 identity matrix in a document, its easier to contruct the matrix in > Sage and call latex() on it. Of course, this is not the raison d'etre > for Sage, but I find its

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 25, 6:05 am, Henryk Trappmann wrote: > Because Bourbaki and Serre said so? > Sorry guys but thats the strangest justificiation Iv ever heard. I don't know quite where you heard it, because it's not what I wrote, especially the part about Bourbaki. However, if a leading mathematician like

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

Because Bourbaki and Serre said so? Sorry guys but thats the strangest justificiation Iv ever heard. At the first place for me is understandability, which is often coupled with common use. Imho the \mathbb notation is the most widespread and most recognized variant. Another important aspect is una

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

I'm in favor of making some of these LaTeX choices configurable. William's example of the grouping symbols for matrices (e.g. square brackets or large parentheses) is the first thing I thought of. I never liked Mathematica's choice and was always just cutting out the rows of a matrix to use withi

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:22 AM, John H Palmieri > wrote: >> On Mar 24, 10:48 am, Jason Grout wrote: >>> I'm curious what the persuasive reasoning was. I've always liked mathbb. >> My impression is that people (maybe Bourbaki?) decided that bold-face >> should be used fo

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

It would be nice have user-configurable settings like this. I definitely prefer mathbb - I think its nice to have special symbols for things like the rationals (as \mathbb{Q}); it lets you use Q as a variable or other object without confusion. -Marshall On Mar 24, 2:00 pm, William Stein wrote:

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:22 AM, John H Palmieri wrote: > > On Mar 24, 10:48 am, Jason Grout wrote: >> William Stein wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM, John H Palmieri >> > wrote: >> >> Currently the latex methods for ZZ, RR, etc. all used mathbf -- plain >> >> boldface -- rather th

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Mar 24, 10:48 am, Jason Grout wrote: > William Stein wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM, John H Palmieri > > wrote: > >> Currently the latex methods for ZZ, RR, etc. all used mathbf -- plain > >> boldface -- rather than mathbb -- 'blackboard' bold. See also the (not > >> currently in

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM, John H Palmieri > wrote: >> Currently the latex methods for ZZ, RR, etc. all used mathbf -- plain >> boldface -- rather than mathbb -- 'blackboard' bold. See also the (not >> currently in use) file SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/doc/common/macros.tex

[sage-devel] Re: ZZ, RR, etc.: mathbb vs. mathbf

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:58 AM, John H Palmieri wrote: > > Currently the latex methods for ZZ, RR, etc. all used mathbf -- plain > boldface -- rather than mathbb -- 'blackboard' bold. See also the (not > currently in use) file SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/doc/common/macros.tex: > lots of mathbf, no math