Browsing through a copy of Counterexamples in Analysis (Gelbaum & Olmsted), I'm quite enjoying the typeface used for 'script' letters (see links to examples below); visually it's somewhere between what I'd now call calligraphic and fraktur, and semantically it's used where now we'd use mathcal, mathfrak or mathbb.

I was therefore procrastinatiously looking for a LaTeX-usable font to include these characters, but couldn't seem to find any. I'm certain they're not unique to this text or publisher, so figured my lack of success was probably more to do with searching with the wrong keywords. If anyone has any ideas I'd be grateful.



  • An attempt by this commenter to track down that P sometime ago for a different reason was not very successful. This commenter also figured out that this kind of script is native to a country, he cannot seem to recall.
    – kan
    Commented Apr 23, 2013 at 3:12

2 Answers 2


Essentially these symbols seem to be available in the MathTime Professional 2 Fonts. In particular page 35 of the user guide gives a complete alphabet of "curly" capital letters including these symbols:

FG samples

P sample

  • Those are really cute letterforms, thanks for the link. I think taking from the curly letters and fraktur letters one could get a pretty close approximation of the typeface used in the book I was looking at. I'm still very surprised that there doesn't seem to be a single alphabet anywhere, given that there clearly must have been one used by whoever typeset it originally.
    – dbmag9
    Commented Apr 23, 2013 at 12:25

I don't have an answer for most of the letters, but the euler package provides a calligraphic font with F and G very much like the first image. There's a sample shown in Robin Fairbairns's Script fonts for mathematical use available to $\LaTeX$ users.

  • is it possible to show a demo for field (F) and group (G) ? Commented Apr 23, 2013 at 4:02
  • The euler script letters (which are lovely) are displayed here; they match up reasonably well for F, G, C, and S, but are totally different on P and R (which are much more like \wp) and M and N (which are quite Frakturesque to my eyes). Usage suggests they are all one unified character set, though - it would be mad to use one typeface for the reals and another for the naturals.
    – dbmag9
    Commented Apr 23, 2013 at 4:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .