Is there a standard TeX or LaTeX code for a symbol that bears the same relation to \prec\prec that \ll bears to << ?

(And how do I get TeX code to get rendered in a question posted here? I'm accustomed to writing things like $\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!}$ on math.stackexchange.com and having it look the way you'd expect it to.)

  • 2
    We don't use MathJax here, because we're interested in TeX code, not in an approximate representation of the result.
    – egreg
    Commented Dec 8, 2013 at 20:39
  • 1
    the "doubled" \prec is in unicode at Ux2ABB and should tus be in the stix and xits fonts. whether you will find the visual appearance pleasing isn't assured though; this one's a tough cookie. Commented Dec 8, 2013 at 22:57
  • The shape given in this answer is much nicer than what's shown in the answers here, although a better name would be \Prec. Commented Apr 28, 2023 at 1:50

2 Answers 2


You can easily build it:


$a\precprec b$

enter image description here

Here's what you get with -6mu and -7mu respectively, take your pick.

enter image description here

  • 2
    Why the wrapper \mathrel around the kerning?
    – A.Ellett
    Commented Dec 8, 2013 at 20:46
  • 3
    @A.Ellett Without it TeX could break a line after the first \prec symbol. Do you consider it a valid reason? ;-)
    – egreg
    Commented Dec 8, 2013 at 20:54
  • 1
    Wouldn't \mathrel{\prec\kern-5mu\prec} work fine, too?
    – yo'
    Commented Sep 1, 2014 at 8:24
  • @tohecz Why doing it the wrong way? ;-)
    – egreg
    Commented Sep 1, 2014 at 8:28

Not sure if this is what you want.





enter image description here

  • Better than nothing, but I think I'd rather have two non-contiguous parts, as happens with \ll. Commented Dec 8, 2013 at 21:09
  • So just changing -8 to about -5 would make them non-contiguous. Commented Dec 8, 2013 at 21:11
  • I wonder if it would be better to make the shape of the one on the right a bit different from that of the one on the left, so that it doesn't get so close at the leftmost point but gets closer than it now does at other points. Commented Jul 14, 2017 at 18:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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