In one-letter subscripts, like $x_i$, the subscript is usually typeset italic.

Is this the typographically right thing to do? Consider this case:

The Boltzmann constant is often written as $k_B$, which is short for $k_{Boltzmann}$. But the lengthy Boltzmann looks strange if typeset all italic. So I usually write $k_{\mathrm{Boltzmann}}$.

But shouldn't then, for consistency, the B in $k_B$ also be upright? And how about the i in $x_i$?

  • 2
    You might be interested in a TUG2010 talk by Johannes Küster called "Math never seen", which gives examples starting approximately at 14:20.
    – morbusg
    Commented Oct 31, 2011 at 16:03
  • I have never seen the "Boltzmann" in the subscript spelled in full.
    – a06e
    Commented Sep 30, 2017 at 15:27
  • The B in k_\text B is part of a name, which would be upright if not in a subscript; whereas the i in x_i is a variable, which would still be slanted if not in a subscript. (Nonetheless, I agree that one often slants single-letter abbreviations of names, despite logic.)
    – LSpice
    Commented May 15, 2022 at 15:37
  • Working link to "Math never seen"
    – Julia
    Commented Oct 16, 2022 at 8:11
  • Additional question: Do you place the indices of e.g. resistors in an electrical network? $R_1$, $R_2$ (resistor values): here the 1 and 2 are up (roman). So should you place $R_A$ or place R_\text{A}. In most books i see R_\text{A}, bit i have the impression sone books always have the indices up. I currently put all the subscripts in non-italics (like in the books), but it does create a lot of typing. Is there a workaround, since default most indices are up and not in italics...
    – MrI2C
    Commented Mar 10 at 13:06

6 Answers 6


Using "all italics" is unfortunately an often committed sin. You should italicize only variables.

Everything else should be upright. For example:

  • function names (sin, cos, log, ln etc...)
  • dimensionless numbers (Re, Pr, Ra...)
  • exact infinitesimal increments (dx, dy et... in BOTH integrals and differentials)
  • descriptive text
  • all descriptive variable indices (unless they are also variables)

Exceptions to this rule may still apply, i.e. the Euler-number $e$ is no variable, but still traditionally written in italics.

Some of the above was stolen from the "Please Make A Note" blog. More detailed information can be found in "Typefaces" from NIST.

  • 22
    The ISO on this says that e, pi, etc. should also be upright (see for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_31-11).
    – Joseph Wright
    Commented Oct 30, 2011 at 15:04
  • 7
    Correct. Although in the scientific community this is mostly ignored. See tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb18-1/tb54becc.pdf Example: physicists run into trouble if they have elementary charge (upright e) and euler's constant (also upright e) in the same article. Furthermore it is custom or tradition to do so. I'd say it is up to personal taste; and I, personally, ignore the ISO here.
    – Boffin
    Commented Oct 30, 2011 at 15:24
  • 6
    @Boffin, in my opinion the elementary charge is not upright 'e', but italic. Unless it is used as subindex (ublabel) for an electron-related quantity (such as electron mass $m_\mathrm{e}$). This makes a stronger case for upright 'e' for Euler constant.
    – alfC
    Commented Apr 22, 2013 at 4:34
  • 2
    The elementary charge is always (? I have not seen otherwise) written as an italic e, as it should be since it is a measurable quantity. The symbol e for the electron in e.g. the electron mass (by itself it is often e⁻ to distinguish from the positron e⁺) is however written in roman, also as it should be since it is a symbol for a particle. Italic e for Euler's number is still common in math texts, though not "correct" according to authority (see the earlier linked TUGBoat article). It is less common in physics, though, I would say (not least to avoid the clash with the elementary charge). Commented Aug 30, 2014 at 13:42
  • 1
    Avoiding talking about personal taste and more about standards, whenever they exists, I would like to add a reference to APS styleguide for authors. It instructs all single letter abbreviations in math to be in italic: electron mass $m_e$, Coulomb energy $E_C$, Boltzmann constant $k_B$ and thus conflicts ISO nad NIST.
    – Johu
    Commented Jul 30, 2018 at 10:35

\text is not the right command to use, as its argument will be typeset in the current font, which may be italics.

\usepackage{amsmath} % for extended version of \textup


What subscripts are to be set in upright font and what in italics is well explained by Boffin. (I disagree about the d for the differential, though, but that's another story: be consistent, that's all for this particular aspect.)

  • 3
    Perhaps it should even be \textnormal as \textup still inherits bold from its surroundings. Commented Nov 4, 2014 at 20:53
  • @egreg @Henri Menke: I posted a new answer showing that \textnormal is better
    – lblb
    Commented Apr 6, 2017 at 20:14
  • If one uses unicode-math is \symup acceptable for math mode text, as in text sub/superscripts? Commented Nov 23, 2020 at 1:09

For me it depends on the context. Using your example, I would agree that you should use $k_{\text{B}}$ since it is short for $k_{\text{Boltzmann}}$. Note the use of \text{...} from the amsmath package, that does a decent job of sticking to the math mode font size, depending on the context.

On that note, $k_{Boltzmann}$ "looks strange" because (La)TeX typesets it like it does regular math, which in this case is the variable B, followed by the variable o, followed by the variable l, and so on. My use of the term "variable" may be incorrect. The point I'm trying to make is that each letter is treated on it's own in math mode, rather than combining them like is done in text mode. The spacing is correct as-is in math mode, it just doesn't look like text.

With this discussion in mind, I hope you agree that $x_i$ should remain $x_i$. Of course, if you are referring to i in your text somewhere (instead of $i$), then it should be upright. IMHO, it is all (mostly?) driven by context.

  • Thanks for mentioning amsmath.
    – Konstantin
    Commented May 6, 2020 at 13:27

Based on egreg's answer and Henri Menke's comment, here's a comparison between amsmath's \text, \textup, and \textnormal commands. From the three, only \textnormal is immune from the outer text mode format, as the name says.


\usepackage{amsmath} % for extended version of \textup




Boffin's answer already provides the correct information. I just want to add to the discussion 'elementary charge' vs. 'Euler number' in the comments:

While physical constants (such as the elementary charge 'e', gravitational constant 'G', speed of light 'c', ...) are typeset italic, all mathematical constants (such as Euler number 'e', imaginary unit 'i', ...) should be typeset upright. This also provides a helpful distinction between, e.g., an index 'i' (italic) and the imaginary unit 'i' (upright).

All in all, the document by NIST which was already linked by @Boffin, provides a concise and complete summary.


This is matter of personal style. In my own documents, I follow similar rules: if subscript stands for people's name I type it using \text command (defined in amsmath package), e.g. $\varepsilon_\text{F}$ (the Fermi energy), $a_\text{B}$ (the Bohr radius), $r_\text{D}$ (Debye's radius), etc. Russian indexes are usially typed upright: $P_\text{т.и}$ (power of bremsstrahlung).

  • You are aware though that \text{} will use any formatting of the outside text mode? For example an italic paragraph will produce italic text inside math mode that way, which is problematic as italic has a special meaning in math notation. See my answer for using \textup or \textnormal instead.
    – lblb
    Commented Dec 6, 2017 at 19:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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