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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In our lecture script, we use the notion of disjoint set union. It uses a special symbol to differentiate the disjoint from the usual set union, where we add an extra dot inside of the \cup symbol. Is there something like a \bigudot? Or any other way to add a centered dot to any symbol?

share|improve this question
Have a look at “How to look up a math symbol?” for ideas how you can easily find a particular symbol. – Caramdir Oct 10 '10 at 16:16
In my opinion, the best notation is \uplus. – goblin Feb 18 '14 at 12:04
up vote 22 down vote accepted

Edit I thought amssymb provides \cupdot which does what you want... but it doesn't.

\usepackage{MnSymbol} provides \cupdot and \bigcupdot but is incompatible with amssymb which is unfortunate.

Sometimes disjoint union is depicted using \sqcup which has the advantage of being in amssymb

share|improve this answer
The MnSymbol package seems to do the job perfectly. I'm not using the amssymb package anyway, so their incompatibility is not a problem for me. Thanks for the hint! – jonny Oct 10 '10 at 10:56

Another possibility to go around the problem that there is no such symbol in amssymb is to use the dot-accent: \dot{\bigcup} or also \dot\bigcup. This works for all symbols, and might very well be the reason that there are no dotted symbols in amssymb.

To let TeX treat such a new construct as an operator in terms of spacing though, you need to use \mathop and \mathbin, that's to say \mathop{\dot{\bigcup}} and \mathbin{\dot{\cup}}.

share|improve this answer
Good suggestion! And welcome to TeX.sx! There's no need to sign your posts off, since your name is already shown at the bottom of the post. Also, you can mark inline code by enclosing it in back ticks, or by selecting it and clicking the {} button in the editor. – Jake Oct 13 '11 at 6:42

Disjoint union is also sometimes written using \coprod, since it is in fact the coproduct in the category of sets.

share|improve this answer
Completely agree with this one. I've never used "cup with a dot in it" and always use either \coprod or \amalg (slightly smaller for inline maths). – Loop Space Oct 14 '10 at 20:49
This should really be a comment to the \coprod answer above, but I don't have any reputation. Though it is true that this symbol describes disjoint union, the usage is slightly different, I think. As described, this is the coproduct in the category of sets or what one might describe as the "exterior disjoint union" whereas the symbol with the dot is usually used for subsets of a given set to denote the union of two sets and state in passing that they are disjoint. In particular, \{1,2\} \dot\union \{3,4\} = \{1,2,3,4\} is a true statement whereas \{1,2\} \coprod \{3,4\} and \{1,2,3,4\} – user13771 Apr 20 '12 at 8:52

Another way is the following:

   \baselineskip\z@skip \lineskiplimit-\maxdimen


The \charfusion macro is built on \moverlay (by D. Arsenau).


$A\cupdot B$

\[ \bigcupdot_{i\in I} A_{i} \]

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
wouldn't \ooalign{\bigcup\cr\cdot} work here too? (With proper \mathpallete and \mathop usage of course.) – yo' Aug 27 '12 at 21:26

If you use xelatex and unicode-math you can simply use the symbol ⊍ directly, or its alias \cupdot: $A ⊍ B \cupdot C$ renders with XITS Math as example.

share|improve this answer
You can use unicode-math with lualatex too. – Khaled Hosny Oct 11 '10 at 6:31
The last time I tried it (about two months ago) some things like underbraces didn’t render correctly with lualatex. Is this fixed now? – Caramdir Oct 11 '10 at 14:23

A redacted version from symbols:


This shows @egreg's solution, "my" solution, and @Vilietha's solution side by side: enter image description here

Not much difference between egreg's and mine, but maybe less to type ;-)

share|improve this answer
Why doesn't this work with \bigcup or \bigcup@? – Jeff Burdges Jan 10 '13 at 23:55
@JeffBurdges Well, it does work as long as you don't load amsmath, it just is not pretty. With amsmath, \bigcup is not just a math character anymore, so \mathaccent complains. – mafp Jan 11 '13 at 10:51
I fixed it with \nolimits even with amsmath loaded, still not pretty but no weird packages, thanks. – Jeff Burdges Jan 13 '13 at 3:21

Your Answer


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.