AMSTeX has a \proclaim macro that goes like this:

\proclaim{Theorem 10} 
Text of the theorem

which results in

Theorem 10. Text of the theorem.

In other words, this environment adds a dot (.) after the number. I would like to not have that dot there, i.e. I want the output to be only

Theorem 10 Text of the theorem.

I have about 200 appearances of this macro in the manuscript that consists of about 30 files and naturally want a not-too-painful way to achieve this. I tried redefining \proclaim into \myproclaim, but it does not seem to like # (nesting). Any suggestions?

1 Answer 1


such a weird choice of format but:

enter image description here

\input amstex

  \let\savedef@\proclaim \let\proclaim\relax
  \add@missing\endroster \add@missing\enddefinition
  \add@missing\endproclaim \envir@stack\endproclaim

\proclaim{Theorem 10} 
Text of the theorem

  • thank you. I was ready to rejoice, until I put it into my file(s). But then, for some strange reason it messes up my commutative diagrams, whether they are inside or outside the redefined proclaim environment. For instance, the following commutative diagram that comes out nicely before the (re)defining of proclaim $$ \CD F @<{\al}<< X \\ @V{\pi_i}VV @VV\al_j V \\ F(i) @>> {F(f)} > F(j) \endCD $$ comes out without arrows, to be more precise, they are shown verbatim as @ < << etc (the symbols like $\pi_i$ inside CD's do come out fine. It is the h or v arrows that do not work
    – Rado
    Commented Jan 13, 2016 at 18:32
  • Some time ago, I suggested to AMSTeX support person (who said that AMSTeX is no longer supported) that one should go to amsppt.sty file and remove the dot and I see that you seem to have done that, with appropriate changes, but why on earth are the arrows affected in commutative diagrams?
    – Rado
    Commented Jan 13, 2016 at 18:39
  • 1
    @Rado I edited the answer to fix the com diag thing, catcode should be 13 not 12 in amstex (no one has used amstex since last millenium so it is easy to forget these things) Commented Jan 13, 2016 at 18:48
  • Thanks greatly! I will try it again and will let you know. Re the old AMSTeX, you are showing that you know the essence of things. There are too many people who know say program version v.1, but cannot handle version v, because their knowledge is superficial, not essential. Surely TeX is TeX, the versions are just build up When that ceases, it should not be TeX any longer, but something else.
    – Rado
    Commented Jan 13, 2016 at 19:07
  • YEI!!!!! David, it works like a charm now. You are the master! Unless somebody comes up with a one liner answer, I think your solution should be characterized as definitive.
    – Rado
    Commented Jan 13, 2016 at 19:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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