I would like to include a number of two-letter variables in a sentence separated by commas but sometimes there is a noticeable space between the variable and the comma that follows it when I use mathit. Although the spaces are not as noticeable in the MWE below.

Is it better to use textit instead of mathit? If so, how can I ensure the font matches single-letter variables using the same letters (e.g. $\textit{A}$)?

\textit{AB}, \textit{BA}, \textit{CD}, \textit{DC}

$\mathit{AB}$, $\mathit{BA}$, $\mathit{CD}$, $\mathit{DC}$

$\textit{AB}$, $\textit{BA}$, $\textit{CD}$, $\textit{DC}$
  • 2
    You're comparing apples and oranges; the right comparison would be between $AB$ and $\mathit{AB}$. – egreg Dec 11 '17 at 8:40
  • The spaces between $\mathit{AB}$ and the adjacent comma and $\mathit{CD}$ and its adjacent comma are small in the png marmot included, based on my MWE, but these spaces become larger (and noticeable) when typeset as part of a paragraph. Unfortunately in my industry, $\mathit{AB}$ is the way these identifiers are typeset in equations. I only came across this space being introduced between $\mathit{AB}$ and the adjacent comma when I tried to include several of these identifiers in a paragraph. My strategy now is to avoid using a comma after $\mathit{AB}$ if the gap becomes too wide. – Chris Dec 18 '17 at 7:09

This is not an answer, but an attempt to talk you out of this notation.

UPDATE This post got feedback from several more experienced users. I agree with all their statements and certainly should have done more research. However, I also feel that their statements provide further reasons for the proposed notation not being optimal.

Your options 
 \item \textit{AB}, \textit{BA}, \textit{CD}, \textit{DC}
 \item $\mathit{AB}$, $\mathit{BA}$, $\mathit{CD}$, $\mathit{DC}$
 \item $\textit{AB}$, $\textit{BA}$, $\textit{CD}$, $\textit{DC}$
look all the same. In fact, it seems that there is no noticable difference
between these options:\\
\verb|\makebox[0pt][l]{$\mathit{AB}$}$\textit{AB}$|: \makebox[0pt][l]{$\mathit{AB}$}$\textit{AB}$

However, things are different once you wrap these commands in other
\verb|\textbf{$\mathit{AB}$}|: \textbf{$\mathit{AB}$} vs.\\
\verb|\textbf{$\textit{AB}$}|: \textbf{$\textit{AB}$}\\
\verb|$\left(\mathit{AB}\right)$|: $\left(\mathit{AB}\right)$ vs.\\
\verb|$\left(\textit{AB}\right)$|: $\left(\textit{AB}\right)$

Even the pure math version looks very similar:\\
\verb|\makebox[0pt][l]{$\mathit{AB}$}$AB$|: \makebox[0pt][l]{$\mathit{AB}$}$AB$ 

However, the pure math version comes with different distances:\\
\verb|\makebox[0pt][l]{$\mathit{BA}$}$BA$|: \makebox[0pt][l]{$\mathit{BA}$}$BA$\\
\verb|\makebox[0pt][l]{$\mathit{BA}$}$\textit{BA}$|: \makebox[0pt][l]{$\mathit{BA}$}$\textit{BA}$

You may come up with a command that distinguishes netween math and nonmath
modes: \verb|\newcommand\myvar[1]{\ensuremath{\mathit{#1}}}|

Under boldface, this seems to behave like a math variable should:\\
\verb|\textbf{\myvar{AB}}|: \textbf{\myvar{AB}}\\
\verb|\textbf{$\myvar{AB}$}|: \textbf{$\myvar{AB}$}\\
\verb|\boldmath$\myvar{AB}$\unboldmath|: \boldmath$\myvar{AB}$\unboldmath\\
\verb|\boldmath\myvar{AB}\unboldmath|: \boldmath\myvar{AB}\unboldmath

The main reason for this point is to question whether it is a very wise move to
use this notation. Many people use $AB$ to indicate the
product $A\cdot B$, and $AB$ is virtually indistinguishable from your variable
\myvar{AB}. (I personally write $A\,B$, but get sometimes criticized.)

\paragraph{Bottomline:} Perhaps it is better to use a different notation.

enter image description here

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Try \textbf{We have $\textit{AB}$} and \textbf{We have $\mathit{AB}$} – egreg Dec 11 '17 at 8:33
  • See the difference: $\left(\mathit{B}\right)$ and $\left(\textit{B}\right)$ The spaces behave differently! – user91669 Dec 11 '17 at 8:59
  • 2
    saying \textit is a better choice because it works in text and math is not good advice, generally \mathit is better for math and \textit is better for text. – David Carlisle Dec 11 '17 at 9:05

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.