# Why does \relsize{-1} in normal size not result in \smaller?

This is maybe just me being unable to find the corresponding part of the manual, but I'd expect relsize's \smaller or \relsize{-1} to have the same effect as using \small inside normal-sized text. However, both seem to result in the equivalent of \footnotesize.

MWE:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{relsize}

\begin{document}

\texttt{\small k1}: \texttt{\smaller k1} \textsmaller{\texttt{k1}} \texttt{\relsize{-1} k1} \texttt{\relsize{0} k1} \texttt{\footnotesize k1}

\end{document}


Result, where I'd expect all but the last two (which I included only for comparison) to be the same size:

The \relsize{-1} command takes the current size and divides it by 1.2; then the nearest available font size is chosen. Since 10/1.2=8.33333, eight point size (that is \footnotesize) is picked up.
You can do, as explained in the package documentation, \relsize{-0.5}, in order to get nine point size when the current size is ten point.
• @rainer -- possibly not useful for you, but amsart and other ams document classes define \smaller and \larger to take an optional argument that proceeds using the "defined" sizes, so \smaller[1] steps down from 10 to 9pt (one size), \larger[2] steps up from 10 to 12pt (two sizes), etc. relsize also allows use of the optional argument, but the progression is different, as pointed out by egreg. – barbara beeton Jun 6 '13 at 12:30