I'm not sure how to do this and have spent a long time trying.

I looked at a previous post on this: Bold subscripts

It is slightly different but, I still can't get it to work.

My code:

p(\textbf{x}) = \sum_{n=1}^{K} \pi_k \mathcal{N}

enter image description here

As you can see, I can get the sigma in bold, but not the mu?

Thanks in advance

  • 1
    If you are using bold to represent something, for instance a vector, I would define a command \newcommand*\vector[1]{\mathbf{#1}} and that way you get clearer code an easy to change. In any case, for \mu you would be better using \bm from bm package. – Manuel Nov 30 '17 at 10:58
  • Welcome to TeX.SE. Your title is misleading: You don't want to capitalize but to get a bold \mu`. – user31729 Nov 30 '17 at 10:58
  • @Manuel Wow. \bm worked. Thanks so much! I spent nearly an hour on this LOL -.o – Tauseef Nov 30 '17 at 11:05
  • 1
    the \mathbf is not expected to do anything good on \mu in traditional pdflatex context. You can use also \boldsymbol{\mu} if using amsmath. Admittedly your \mathbf{\Sigma} works... turns out indeed that in the default setting \Sigma is of variable family type but not \mu. – user4686 Nov 30 '17 at 11:54

I am adding an answer for a remark (the OP got the answer from @Manuel's comment to use \bm from bm package; one can also use \boldsymbol from amsmath package).

The remark here is that there was a problem with \mu but not with \Sigma. Why?

The point is that the cmr font contains 11 uppercase greek letters in slots 0 to 10, in the OT1 encoding. This is a bizarre legacy, but it does make \mathbf{\Sigma} work. I.e. the font used for operator names (log, sin, cos,...) also contains the uppercase (non-Latin) Greek letters. The idea of the \math.. alphabet commands is to use the text font in math mode. That it works for those 11 Greek letters is counter-intuitive and bound to the OT1 encoding used by the "operator" font. It is not robust against changes of the "operator" font.

Hence I would not recommend using \mathbf{\Sigma}, because it twists too much the idea of the LaTeX NFSS math alphabet commands. It ties it to peculiarity of Knuth's OT1 encoding.

  • Yeah, although the problem was solved the mystery was not solved. Thanks for the explanation! – Tauseef Dec 2 '17 at 11:52

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.