Reputation
23,748
Top tag
Next privilege 25,000 Rep.
Access to site analytics
Badges
3 80 151
Newest
 Nice Answer
Impact
~823k people reached

Jan
22
awarded  Nice Answer
Jan
12
awarded  Nice Answer
Nov
17
awarded  Good Answer
Nov
1
awarded  Nice Answer
Oct
12
awarded  Notable Question
Oct
3
awarded  Popular Question
Sep
19
awarded  Yearling
Aug
20
awarded  Good Answer
Aug
1
awarded  Good Question
Jun
28
awarded  Nice Answer
Jun
15
awarded  Nice Answer
May
31
awarded  Notable Question
May
26
awarded  Popular Question
May
9
comment Can I get a \widebar without using the mathabx package?
@wipet: #1 Agreed, for some letters my \widebar is not that good, but that's the same for plain TeX's \hat j and \hat k. It's not surprising that your code yields nicer results in those cases: you have manual adjustments for them. #2 In the case of \widebar{\cal V} and \widebar{\cal W}, I like the output of my code a lot better that that of yours. Re "bug": You're right, I should adapt my code to work better in that case (although I'd say it's not a bug as I wrote "if the first token is a letter, use that letter for the computations", and \beta is not a letter).
May
9
comment Can I get a \widebar without using the mathabx package?
Thanks for your answer! I'd be interested to know what disadvantages of \skewchar you see for \widebar. I have two issues with your code: 1. you need a lot of manual work in \widebarE (I see you make an effort there; you'd have to do it all over for a different font), and 2., more seriously, you can't distinguish between different calligraphic letters. Have you tried \widebar{\cal W}?
May
1
comment Kerning super- and subscripts “semantically”
Ah, now I understand what you mean, thanks! Indeed, TeX is not well suited for using text fonts like cmr in math.
May
1
comment Kerning super- and subscripts “semantically”
Hmm, it appears my guess was not quite correct: CHARACTER O 173 is the only one with non-zero italic correction - no idea what character that is. And I have really no idea what could possibly have led to the decision to set \fontdimen2 to 0.3.
May
1
comment Kerning super- and subscripts “semantically”
Re #1: Right, it might be better to have two parameters. There's none for superscripts, which becomes apparent when one types A_2^2. What I was addressing with "not true" was that you wrote "used for another purpose". I don't know any instance where one would use \/ for a math font. Re #2: Ah, that's interesting! Right, I meant fonts with zero \fontdimen2. I didn't know that for msbm10 it's non-zero, and I find that very strange. I haphazard a guess that all characters from msbm10 have zero CHARIC - then it makes some sense. If I were to manipulate the font, I'd set \fontdimen2=0.
May
1
comment Kerning super- and subscripts “semantically”
Concerning "This is not very well concept in TeX": As I understand it, this is not true. In a math font, CHARIC is only used for positioning of subscripts, nothing else. The italic correction is always included if you use a character, as in A=W or WA. See also this answer of mine and this question.
Apr
27
awarded  Announcer