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.

I am using the package MinionPro. But I need some symbols, for example, \gnapprox and \mho, available on the package amssymb.

Well, here is my code (as minimal as possible):

\documentclass{report}
\usepackage{MinionPro}
\usepackage{amssymb}

\begin{document}
\[\gnapprox \]

\[\mho \]
\end{document}

But I got the errors:

Command `\mathfrak' already defined. \DeclareMathAlphabet{\mathfrak}{U}{euf}{m}{n}
Command `\mathfrak' not defined as a math alphabet. ...athAlphabet{\mathfrak}{bold}{U}{euf}{b}{n}
Command `\centerdot' already defined. ...ymbol{\centerdot} {\mathbin}{AMSa}{"05}
Command `\veebar' already defined. ...mbol{\veebar} {\mathbin}{AMSa}{"59}
Command `\barwedge' already defined. ...mbol{\barwedge} {\mathbin}{AMSa}{"5A}
Command `\doublebarwedge' already defined. ...ol{\doublebarwedge} {\mathbin}{AMSa}{"5B}
Command `\circledS' already defined. ...mbol{\circledS} {\mathord}{AMSa}{"73}
Command `\dotplus' already defined. ...mbol{\dotplus} {\mathbin}{AMSa}{"75}
Command `\complement' already defined. ...mbol{\complement} {\mathord}{AMSa}{"7B}
Command `\divideontimes' already defined. ...ol{\divideontimes} {\mathbin}{AMSb}{"3E}
Command `\thicksim' already defined. ...ol{\thicksim} {\mathrel}{AMSb}{"73}
Command `\thickapprox' already defined. ...ol{\thickapprox} {\mathrel}{AMSb}{"74}
Command `\hslash' already defined. ...ol{\hslash} {\mathord}{AMSb}{"7D}

How is the right way to use both packages?

share|improve this question
2  
take a look at the answer to this question to see how to include just a few symbols from a font. the symbols \gnapprox and \mho are in the msbm10 font. you can texdoc amsfonts and look in appendix e (p.37) for their location in the font, or set your own font chart using the technique in the answer already mentioned. –  barbara beeton Jan 23 '13 at 16:24
    
@barbarabeeton, great! I'm editing that solution to my case but I don't know what to do with the command \hyphenchar\font45. Should I change something? Should I look at the font table to some particular glyph? –  Sigur Jan 23 '13 at 16:38
1  
you can simply ignore the \hyphenchar\font45 and leave an empty group {} in its place. \hyphenchar is really needed only for text fonts. the relevant command for msbm is in the file umsb.fd: \DeclareFontFamily{U}{msb}{} –  barbara beeton Jan 23 '13 at 16:56
1  
i don't have access to minion pro, so i can't really investigate this. but instead of msbm10 you might try msbm9, making a wild guess that minion symbols really are generally smaller than computer modern (which is what msbm is based on). –  barbara beeton Jan 23 '13 at 17:10
2  
Note also that MnSymbol, desgined to work with Minion, has some of the symbols, e.g., \gnapprox. However, it seems that there is no \mho. –  mafp Jan 23 '13 at 17:55

1 Answer 1

gnapprox is also available in MnSymbol, though slighly different from the amssymb version. Here is a variant so that the mhosymbol lies on the baseline:

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{MinionPro}
\def\mho{\raisebox{0.96\depth}{\scalebox{1}[-1]{$ \Omega $}} }


\begin{document}

\[ \gnapprox\rlap{\rule[-0.1pt]{1cm}{0.1pt}}{\mho\enspace \Omega

} ]

\end{document} 

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
1  
Given that all other characters with rounded features at the baseline are allowed some undershoot (i.e., their lower "edges" are allowed to intersect the baseline ever so slightly), I would have said it's OK to give some undershoot to \mho as well. However, there's no arguing about taste, right? –  Mico Aug 31 at 8:52
    
The problem is that without adjustment, the mho symbol does not intersect the base line: it's slightly above it. Don't you think it's more problematic? What's funny is the same trick with Computer Modern requires no adjustment. –  Bernard Aug 31 at 9:01
    
OK, not having the fonts that go with the MinionPro package, I wasn't aware of the problem with the unadjusted \mho symbol. I'd guess that a very slight undershoot -- mimicking the extent of the undershoot in the letter O -- would be best. –  Mico Aug 31 at 9:07
    
Yes. In my proposed code, one could change 0.96\depth to 0.95\depth. –  Bernard Aug 31 at 9:10
    
But I can't use XeLaTeX with the above. At least in this system, a similar problem to tex.stackexchange.com/questions/16801/ ensued –  doed Aug 31 at 14:30

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.