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, 2016 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, 2016 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, 2016 at 20:00
  • \reflectbox{E} :)
    – Manuel
    Jul 10, 2016 at 23:36

1 Answer 1


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...

You must log in to answer this question.

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