# Rotating Mathematical Symbols without losing quality

I need to use the symbol \subsetneq rotated by 45 degrees. I can obtain the required symbol with

\rotatebox[origin=c]{45}{$\subsetneq$}


or equivalently with

\begin{rotate}{45}
$\subsetneq$
\end{rotate}


but in both cases the quality loss on the symbol is very high. Does anybody know of a better way to do this? Thanks

Here is an example:

\documentclass[xcolor=dvipsnames]{beamer}
\usepackage{xcolor, enumerate, MnSymbol, mathtools, graphicx, textpos, rotating}
\begin{document}
\frame{
\begin{rotate}{45}
$\subsetneq$
\end{rotate}
}
\end{document}


From the log file:

Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
17736 strings out of 493921
321014 string characters out of 3144864
378011 words of memory out of 3000000
20634 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+200000
20133 words of font info for 55 fonts, out of 3000000 for 9000
841 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191
49i,14n,53p,451b,552s stack positions out of 5000i,500n,10000p,200000b,50000s
<C:\Users\Carapelle\AppData\Local\MiKTeX\2.9\fonts\pk\ljfour\public\mnsymbol
\dpi1244\MnSymbolD12.pk>
Output written on untitled-4.pdf (1 page, 7035 bytes).
PDF statistics:
46 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607)
3 named destinations out of 1000 (max. 500000)
43 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 10000 (max. 10000000)

-
If you rotate a scalable font glyph there should be no change in quality. If you are rotating bitmap glyphs the question is how come you are using bitmap fonts this century? So we need more information about your setup to answer. –  David Carlisle Mar 6 at 14:04
Sorry, I am really not sure what you are asking me. The \subsetneq symbol is included in the MnSymbol package. –  claudia Mar 6 at 14:06
Welcome to TeX.SX! Please help us to help you and add a minimal working example (MWE) that illustrates your problem. It will be much easier for us to reproduce your situation and find out what the issue is when we see compilable code, starting with \documentclass{...} and ending with \end{document}. - We need to see for example what fonts you use, because you shouldn't get any quality loss. –  Juri Robl Mar 6 at 14:06
I am asking (a) what you mean by "loss of quality" (as there should be no change in quality) and, (b) assuming you mean that the rotated characters are fuzzy in some way, I'm asking what fonts you are using. –  David Carlisle Mar 6 at 14:08
OK, sorry, I am very new. I have edited the question, hopefully this answers your question. –  claudia Mar 6 at 14:23

The procedure you should follow (taken from http://docs.miktex.org/2.9/manual/advanced.html#psfonts) is

1. Go to a DOS command prompt

2. Type initexmf --edit-config-file updmap followed by Return

3. In the file that opens for editing, add

Map MnSymbol.map


at the end

4. Save the file and exit the file editor

5. Type initexmf --mkmaps followed by Return at the command prompt

After these steps, pdflatex should use the Type1 font.

-
worked perfectly, now with the MnSymbol package the symbles look really good. thanks –  claudia Mar 6 at 15:35
Just for the record: In general the update of font configuration file(s) is done automatically upon font installation (if done by MiKTeX routine). It seems to have failed in Claudia’s case. Happens unfortunately from time to time. –  Speravir Mar 7 at 0:02
\listfiles
\documentclass[xcolor=dvipsnames]{beamer}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{enumerate, MnSymbol, mathtools, textpos}
\begin{document}
\frame{
\Huge
$\subsetneq$\rotatebox{45}{$\subsetneq$}
}
\end{document}


from the log file:

*File List*
beamer.cls 2013/12/02 3.33 A class for typesetting presentations (rcs-revi
sion 332bfd3ce558)
[...]

-
it doesn't look the same in my system –  claudia Mar 6 at 14:43
add \listfiles as first line and have a look into the end of the logfile. What does it say? –  Herbert Mar 6 at 14:56
*File List* beamer.cls 2013/01/04 3.26 A class for typesetting presentations (rcs-revision e81e0c94bcc6) –  claudia Mar 6 at 15:02
that's ok so far.Do you really need the MnSymbol package? –  Herbert Mar 6 at 15:08
you are right, it looks like I don't. the result is much better. Thanks –  claudia Mar 6 at 15:14