I have looked in symbols file and tried various forms of $\exists$ with various fonts but I always get something that appears very thin. As if there is no bold version. Is there a way of approximating a bold version? I am assuming this applies to many of logic symbols.

I had a similar question, which was closed due to lack of clarity. There the suggestion was to take letter E and rotate or flip it. The results are not that satisfactory.

  • 2
    $\boldsymbol{\exists}$ ? – Zarko Jul 10 '16 at 19:16
  • 2
    \documentclass{article}\usepackage{bm}\begin{document}$\exists\bm{\exists}$\end{document}. However, in most fonts, the thin \exists is what you want; the font designers know why they make it thin: it shall be thin, thicker would be really ugly. – yo' Jul 10 '16 at 19:23
  • @Zarko Now I see that if I put on good glasses and compare them side-by-side, as in yo' code, I notice a difference. But decidedly the bold is still thin! – Maesumi Jul 10 '16 at 20:00
  • \reflectbox{E} :) – Manuel Jul 10 '16 at 23:36

Hmmm... several ideas (to be surrounded by \mathop, or \mathord — really do not know). You can change easily the thickness and proportion of the tikz symbol changing the line width, x and y keys, and align it with the baseline option.

\newcommand{\ReallyExists}{\tikz[baseline=-0.7pt,line width=1.4pt,
    line cap=round, x=0.5em,y=0.3em] 
    \draw (0,0) -- (1,0) -- (1,1) -- (0,1) (1,1) -- (1,2) -- (0,2);} 
Test: $\exists\,\bm{\exists}\,\Exists\,\ReallyExists$

it really exists...

| improve this answer | |

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.