# Style question: Good spacing in (display-)math [closed]

I was quite disappointed to find no recommendation on spacing in math-mode in the AMS guide, so I wanted to ask if there is some rule of thumb for spacing math like

$x_n \to 0 \quad (n \to \infty) \qquad \Rightarrow \qquad f(x_n) \to 0 \quad (n \to \infty)$


Are \quad and \qquad really the best choice?

## closed as off-topic by Joseph Wright♦Sep 7 '14 at 6:15

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "This question does not fall within the scope of TeX, LaTeX or related typesetting systems as defined in the help center." – Joseph Wright
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• Instead of \qquad \Rightarrow \qquad you should use the correct \implies. You don't like the spacing around \implies? Well, you can change the definition later. EDIT: I don't really understand what you ask, but I do use \quad and \qquad to space displayed mathematics. – Manuel Apr 25 '14 at 13:04
• I think your choice of spacing for this case is fine. \quad and \qquad and produce standard amounts used in traditional typogarphy. The TeXbook discusses such issues, which is probably why the ams doc's don't feel that they need to cover this again. – Andrew Swann Apr 25 '14 at 13:33
• see the answer by gonzalo medina to question 25861; there is a link to the manual math into type by ellen swanson, former editorial head at the ams. there is additional good advice in a comment to that answer. amsmath is supposed to have these principles built in, but it does depend on an author using the appropriate commands. – barbara beeton Apr 25 '14 at 13:34
• Here are the links to the question and the manual referenced by Barbara. – arney Apr 25 '14 at 14:01
• This is really a style question not a technical one: that makes it off-topic. – Joseph Wright Sep 7 '14 at 6:16