----- Message d'origine ----- De: "Mirek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hello, > > I am not sure if it is the proper place to discuss the case if missing > characters, but haven't found better place. > > I tried to find out two characters in unicode and encountered the > following problem. There are two characters for logical EXISTS and FOR > ALL signs. > There exists "old notation" that is in unicode (exist = > mirrored E, for all = inverted A) U+2200 U+2203 >and yet new notation (exist = the character similar to logical OR OPERATOR but bigger, and for all = > similar to logical AND OPERATOR, but bigger). You mean similar to U+22C0 and U+22C1 ? Do you have any reference as to the modernity of this V-like notation ? May I add that, at first sight, I find this a very strange idea since well-known and distinct signs would have been replaced by signs dangerously close to other well-known ones. > IMHO it's strange that unicode does not cover both types of notations, or maybe I missed something. I don't know, but how about considering them as glyph variants ? P. A.
