# Tag Info

## New answers tagged bold

3

An appropriately-placed patch in the ToC can correct this behaviour. Below I've patched \l@chapter - the macro responsible for setting the chapter-related content in the ToC - and removed \bfseries: \documentclass{report} \usepackage[toc,page,titletoc]{appendix} \usepackage{etoolbox} \makeatletter \g@addto@macro\appendices{% \addtocontents{toc}{\...

6

Here is an update for bm in luatex using classic math font setup. It does not do the right thing for opentype math fonts with unicode-math (where it is not always clear what the right thing should be as most such setups do not include a bold font) \documentclass{article} \usepackage{bm} \makeatletter \def\bm@test@token#1{% \let\bm@next\@empty \ifx#1\@...

4

I guess you did the wrong attempts, because \boldsymbol works. However, it's better \bm (needs the bm package to be loaded after amsmath). \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{bm} \begin{document} $\hbar\ne\bm{\hbar}$ \end{document} If you are using Times based fonts with \usepackage{mathptmx}, then no attempt can be successful, ...

5

[This is not a solution but a workaround] You say, that there is an upcoming deadline and there might be no fix available until then. Here is a workaround, which requires the amsmath package (which you most probably use). It defines \bm to use the \boldsymbol macro from amsbsy (loaded automatically by amsmath). Keep in mind that there are certain ...

1

Don't mix the package fontenc and fontspec! Use only one of them! Running xelatex or lualatex then use fontspec. If running pdflatex then use fontenc: Here is a working example for xelatex/lualatex: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{report} \usepackage[scaled=.90]{helvet}% Helvetica, served as a model for arial \usepackage{fontspec} \setmainfont{Times New Roman}...

0

A solution: \documentclass{article} \usepackage{bm} \newcommand\bolden[1]{{\boldmath\bfseries#1}} \begin{document} $A$ is $\sigma$-strongly monotone. \bolden{$A$ is $\sigma$-strongly monotone.} \end{document}

1

Ah - thanks to @Andrew Swann for his comment which led me to the correct answer. I was using \mathbf{l} when I should have been using \boldsymbol{l}.

Top 50 recent answers are included