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.

It seems that using \boldmath (or \bm) along with the \not does not quite work so well. Here is an example using \not\subseteq and \not\le where the line representing negation does not stretch sufficiently past the end of the symbol.

enter image description here

Questions:

  • Is there a better way to get bold math, or do I need to resort to my usual overkill solution and use \tikz to draw the not line?

  • Is this is known issue with bold math, and are there other known issues with bold math?

References:

Code:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{xcolor}

%% http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/85033/colored-symbols-in-latex
\newcommand*{\MathColor}{}
\def\MathColor#1#{\mathcoloraux{#1}}
\newcommand*{\mathcoloraux}[3]{%
  \protect\leavevmode
  \begingroup
    \color#1{#2}#3%
  \endgroup
}

\newcommand{\Expression}{R \not\subseteq T, x \not\le y}%

\begin{document}
\begin{tabular}{r l}
                  & $\Expression$ \\% This works fine.
\verb|\boldmath|: & {\boldmath $ \Expression$} \\
\verb|\bm|: & \bm{$\Expression$} 
\end{tabular}

\bigskip
Test with color
\medskip

\begin{tabular}{r l}
\verb|\MathColor|: & $\MathColor{red}{\Expression}$ \\
\verb|\boldmath|: & {\boldmath $ \MathColor{red}{\Expression}$} \\
\verb|\bm|: & %\par\bm{$\MathColor{\Expression}$}%% ???
\end{tabular}
\end{document}
share|improve this question
    
Hm, you might want to add, what you dislike. Yes, the \not does not extend that much over the negated symbol, but other than that … Sadly, the \nsubseteq macro from the amssymb package behaves much worse. The \bm-\Mathcolor combination works again if you add another set of { } braces around \MathColor (potentially harming the spacing, again): \bm{${\MathColor{red}{\Expression}}$} –  Qrrbrbirlbel Feb 16 '13 at 4:44
    
I don't know where to start about other issues too :) but probably @DavidCarlisle would give the whole picture as he has been recently thinking about alternatives. –  percusse Feb 16 '13 at 4:49
    
@Qrrbrbirlbel: Have added that info, and now also include \not\le. –  Peter Grill Feb 16 '13 at 5:03
    
@percuße: Yep, David is the man of color around here. :-) But he does have an unfair advantage. –  Peter Grill Feb 16 '13 at 5:05
    
Perhaps the package centernot is of help? –  vonbrand Feb 16 '13 at 19:11

1 Answer 1

up vote 8 down vote accepted
+50

I'd say that in the end this is a font problem: you need a font with a bold \nsubseteq symbol. (Or the \not symbol from the bold math font should be longer.) If you don't have appropriate symbols, you can tinker around and manually construct a longer \not symbol. I did this in the code below, and it appears that it behaves nicely with \bm and \color:

output

Beware: This works with manual kerns that are pixel perfect only for the CM font in \textstyle. Note that to have \bm work with color, you shouldn't \bm the colored math but color the \bmed math.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{bm,xcolor}
\newcommand*\longnot{%
  \mathrel{%
    \mkern-0.75mu
    \raisebox{-0.8pt}{$\not$}%
    \mkern1.5mu
    \raisebox{0.8pt}{$\not$}%
    \mkern-0.75mu
    }
  }
\begin{document}
$\bm{A\not\subseteq B}$ versus $\bm{A\longnot\subseteq B}$
\par\smallskip
with color: \color{red}{$\bm{R \longnot\subseteq T,\ x \longnot\le y$}}
\end{document}
share|improve this answer

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.