6

I need a cross symbol, similar to \dagger, but optimally less fancy, smaller (not as long vertical line below the crossing) and without having to load a special symbol package (besides amsmath). The letter "t" without the bottom curve would do.

I also need the cross upside down (for mathematical and not religious reasons...). If I use sth. like \newcommand{\rotatedCross}{\ensuremath{\rotatebox[origin=c]{180}{\ensuremath{\dagger}}}}%, I get error messages if I use \rotatedCross inside other complex commands (use of \complexCommand doesn't match its definition). So the same cross upside down as own symbol (or a simpler solution than rotatebox) would be perfect.

7

A solution that uses simple rules:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\newcommand*{\crosssymbol}{%
% \mathbin{%
    \text{%
      \raise 1ex\hbox{%
        \rlap{\vrule height.2pt depth.2pt width .75ex}%
        \hbox to .75ex{\hss\vrule height .5ex depth 1ex\hss}%
      }%
    }%  
% }%
}
\newcommand*{\crossupsidedown}{%
% \mathbin{%
    \text{%
      \raise .5ex\hbox{%
        \rlap{\vrule height.2pt depth.2pt width .75ex}%
        \hbox to .75ex{\hss\vrule height 1ex depth .5ex\hss}%
      }%
    }%  
% }%
}

\begin{document}
$\dag\,\crosssymbol\crossupsidedown\,\mathsf{t}$
\end{document}

The same file translated into "pure LaTeX":

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\newcommand*{\crosssymbol}{%
% \mathbin{%
    \text{%
      \raisebox{1ex}{%
        \makebox[0pt][l]{%
          \rule[-.2pt]{.75ex}{.4pt}%
        }%  
        \makebox[.75ex]{%
          \rule[-1ex]{.4pt}{1.5ex}%
        }%
      }%
    }%  
% }%    
}   
\newcommand*{\crossupsidedown}{%
% \mathbin{%
    \text{%
      \raisebox{.5ex}{%
        \makebox[0pt][l]{%
          \rule[-.2pt]{.75ex}{.4pt}%
        }%
        \makebox[.75ex]{%
          \rule[-.5ex]{.4pt}{1.5ex}%
        }%
      }%
    }%
% }%
}

\begin{document}
\(\dag\,\crosssymbol\crossupsidedown\,\mathsf{t}\)
\end{document}

Result

Remarks:

  • I do not know the purpose of the symbols, therefore you might want to add \mathbin or \mathrel to get the horizontal spacing right.
3

Using Herr Oberdiek's rule approach, but doing the overlay with the convenient \stackon macro of the just-submitted stackengine package, it makes the construction more compact.

I first define \stacktype as "L" meaning a "long" stack in which the stack is calculated baseline-to-baseline (versus a short "S" stack calculated with in inter-item gap size). Then, with \stackon, the second argument is stacked on the first, preserving the baseline of the first (anchor) argument. The width of the result is the width of the total stack, though that can be set to the width of the anchor, if that makes sense for the stack. With the optional argument, I specify the stacklength, which for an "L" stack is the baseline shift between the items of the stack.

I hope the package propagates this weekend from CTAN.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{stackengine}
\def\cross{%
  \stackon[1ex]{\rule{0.4pt}{1.5ex}}{\rule{.75ex}{0.4pt}}}
\def\invcross{%
  \stackon[0.5ex]{\rule{0.4pt}{1.5ex}}{\rule{.75ex}{0.4pt}}}
\def\stacktype{L}
\begin{document}
\dag\cross\invcross t
\end{document}

enter image description here

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.