Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is such a beautiful textbook; very dear to me. I think it has a great font - which I know is Times New Roman. But somehow, I can't even get close to it. One of the main obstacles is making the font thicker somehow. Anyways, here is a sample page. If anyone can translate it into TeX, I'd be impressed.

enter image description here

P.S. The main issue is to somehow make the Times New Roman font a little thicker. Here is my attempt - is there any way to make this look a little less corny?:

enter image description here

share|improve this question
    
Welcome to TeX.SE! Please also add the code you've written to create the excerpt you've posted. Useful answers to font-related questions will depend importantly on features such as the font family (or families) you're using. –  Mico Oct 28 '13 at 5:53
1  
shit I just deleted it –  Dave Oct 28 '13 at 5:54
    
'Corny' is somewhat subjective and not something I normally use to describe the physically appearance of most things. Can you be a little more specific? If you use fontspec, you can tweak the 'weight' of your fonts pretty easily.... –  jon Oct 28 '13 at 5:54
    
You can try by loading packages providing native support for times in math, i.e., newtx font (newtxtext anf newtxmath`). –  Guido Oct 28 '13 at 5:55
    
I gotta go to bed now - this post will be revisited. –  Dave Oct 28 '13 at 5:55

1 Answer 1

up vote 16 down vote accepted

With \usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath}

enter image description here

With \usepackage{tgtermes}\usepackage[lite]{mtpro2}

enter image description here

With \usepackage{stix}

enter image description here

With \usepackage{mathptmx}

enter image description here

Source

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
%%% Uncomment one at a time
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath}
%\usepackage{tgtermes}\usepackage[lite]{mtpro2}
%\usepackage{stix}
%\usepackage{mathptmx}

\newcommand{\vect}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}


\begin{document}
\renewcommand\thesection{9.\arabic{section}}
\setcounter{section}{1}
\renewcommand\theequation{9.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{39}

\section{Electromagnetic Waves in Vacuum}

\subsection{The Wave Equation for $\vect{E}$ and $\vect{B}$}

In regions of space where there is no charge or current,
Maxwell's equations read
\begin{equation}
\left.
\begin{alignedat}{4}
&\text{(i)}\quad & \nabla\cdot\vect{E}&=0,\qquad
&&\text{(ii)}\quad & \nabla\times\vect{E}&=-\frac{\partial\vect{B}}{\partial t},
\quad\\
&\text{(iii)}\quad & \nabla\cdot\vect{B}&=0,\qquad
&&\text{(iv)}\quad & \nabla\times\vect{B}&=\mu_0\epsilon_0\frac{\partial\vect{E}}{\partial t}.
\quad
\end{alignedat}
\right\rbrace
\end{equation}
They constitute a set of coupled, first-order, partial differential equations
for $\vect{E}$ and $\vect{B}$. They can be \emph{de}coupled by applying the
curl to (iii)~and~(iv):
\begin{align*}
\nabla\times(\nabla\times\vect{E}) &=
  \nabla(\nabla\cdot\vect{E})-\nabla^2\cdot\vect{E}=
  \nabla\times\left(-\frac{\partial\vect{B}}{\partial t}\right)
\\[1ex]
&=
-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\nabla\times\vect{B})=
-\mu_0\epsilon_0\frac{\partial^2\vect{E}}{\partial t^2},
\\[2ex]
\nabla\times(\nabla\times\vect{B}) &=
  \nabla(\nabla\cdot\vect{B})-\nabla^2\cdot\vect{B}=
  \nabla\times\left(\mu_0\epsilon_0\frac{\partial\vect{E}}{\partial t}\right)
\\[1ex]
&=
\mu_0\epsilon_0\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\nabla\times\vect{E})=
-\mu_0\epsilon_0\frac{\partial^2\vect{B}}{\partial t^2}.
\end{align*}
\end{document}
share|improve this answer
    
Incredible. thanks! –  Dave Oct 28 '13 at 15:28
    
Wait - the packages produce an error - how would I be able to use them? –  Dave Oct 28 '13 at 15:38
    
nvm - it's working code :) –  Dave Oct 28 '13 at 15:41
    
I think that the mtpro2, which is the exact answer, is wrong (I think it's the same as the newtx). –  Manuel Oct 29 '13 at 9:40
    
@Manuel You're right; I must have grabbed the wrong picture. The difference in the rendering of \partial is evident. Fixed. –  egreg Oct 29 '13 at 10:00

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.