3

Some time ago I posted the question

How do I get filled black < and \leq?

and got a very useful answer which I accepted. However, my \bleq only fills 95% with black, and the author of the answer I accepted identifies my use of the MnSymbol package as the problem. But if I try to disable MnSymbo my long document does not compile.

May someone be helpful and find a way to modify the answer I accepted or find some other remedy so that my \bleq gets filled 100% with black?

Here is egreg's answer with MnSymbol loaded:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{MnSymbol}

\newcommand{\bleq}{\mathrel{\mathpalette\bleqinn\relax}}
\newcommand{\bleqinn}[2]{%
  \ooalign{%
    \raisebox{.2ex}{$#1\blacktriangleleft$}\cr
    $#1\leq$\cr
  }%
}

\begin{document}
$a\bleq b\leq c$

$\bleq_{\bleq_{\bleq}}$
\end{document}

enter image description here

3

Here, I took egreg's answer from the cited question and scaled the black triangle 1.23x horizontally, 1.16x vertically, and raised it a different amount (0.04ex) for the overlay.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{MnSymbol,graphicx}

\newcommand{\bleq}{\mathrel{\mathpalette\bleqinn\relax}}
\newcommand{\bleqinn}[2]{%
  \ooalign{%
    \raisebox{0.04ex}{\scalebox{1.23}[1.16]{$#1\blacktriangleleft$}}\cr
    $#1\leq$\cr
  }%
}

\begin{document}
$a\bleq b\leq c$

$\bleq_{\bleq_{\bleq}}$
\end{document}

enter image description here

|improve this answer|||||
  • Segletes Is there a way to modify your definition to get a black < the same size as this \bleq? – Sapiens Jun 12 '15 at 14:00
  • 1
    @FrodeBjørdal Is this sufficient: \newcommand{\blt}{\mathrel{\mathpalette\bltinn\relax}} \newcommand{\bltinn}[2]{% \ooalign{% \raisebox{0.04ex}{\scalebox{1.23}[1.22]{$#1\blacktriangleleft$}}\cr $#1$\cr }% } ? – Steven B. Segletes Jun 15 '15 at 17:14
1

Since \blacktriangleleft in MnSymbol is sensibly different from < by dimensions, I'd take a different path:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{MnSymbol,pict2e,picture}

\newcommand{\bleq}{%
  \mathrel{%
    \vphantom{\leq}%
    \mathpalette{\bgleqinn\blacktriangleleft}{0.1}%
  }%
}
\newcommand{\bgeq}{%
  \mathrel{%
    \vphantom{\geq}%
    \mathpalette{\bgleqinn\blacktriangleright}{0.25}%
  }%
}

\makeatletter
\newcommand{\bgleqinn}[3]{%
  \sbox\z@{$#2\m@th#1$}%
  \linethickness{.1\ht\z@}
  \begin{picture}(\wd\z@,\ht\z@)(0,-.15\ht\z@)
  \roundcap
  \put(#3\wd\z@,-.2\ht\z@){\line(1,0){.65\wd\z@}}
  \put(0,0){\box\z@}
  \end{picture}%
}
\makeatother

\begin{document}

$<\blacktriangleleft\leq\bleq$ $>\blacktriangleright\geq\bgeq$

$a\bleq b\leq c$

$\bleq_{\bleq_{\bleq}}$

$\leq\bleq_{\leq\bleq_{\leq\bleq}}$

\end{document}

enter image description here

|improve this answer|||||
  • this raises a (to me) serious question regarding symbol design: what symbols should be considered "related" from the point of view of coordinating sizes and shapes. do you know of any well thought out discussion on the matter that has made it into "print"? – barbara beeton Jun 4 '15 at 15:38
  • @barbarabeeton Of one thing I'm certain: that the symbols in MnSymbol are mostly ugly. – egreg Jun 4 '15 at 15:39
  • well, i agree with that. but i still would like to know if there is any "recorded" information on the general topic. (after lots and lots of work on stix, i am still learning. all i had to go on for that was models from "reputable" sources, such as monotype, but no reference was "complete", and i know there are flaws in the result as a consequence.) – barbara beeton Jun 4 '15 at 15:44
  • @barbarabeeton Even if the symbols are geometric, their proportions should agree with those of the main font; in the case of MnSymbol they are tailored for Minion, which is much different from Computer Modern: the arrows are too small, for instance. They also make other choices: in the case of \blacktriangleright it doesn't agree with < as shown by the OP's image. – egreg Jun 4 '15 at 15:51
  • again, no disagreement. but how does one "learn" how to make such decisions? (see the [unicode tech report on math]{unicode.org/reports/tr25) regarding sizes of geometric shapes, pp.19-21, for some overkill on the subject.) this is more a topic for the chat, i guess, or a sit-down in some bar. the population of otherwise competent font designers who are also knowledgeable about math symbols is mighty limited. – barbara beeton Jun 4 '15 at 16:02

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.