What's the semantic difference between \amalg and \coprod for disjoint unions?

I used to use \amalg for binary operations like X \amalg Y and \coprod for operators like \coprod_\lambda X_\lambda. But I realized that I don't know any literature or manual how these similar-looking symbols should be used. Please tell me if you have any.


I found an answer by myself soon after I asked a question. To close this question, I write an answer by myself.

In a document in https://ctan.org/pkg/comprehensive, \amalg appears in "Table 50: Binary Operators" among \cup, \oplus and \setminus. On the other hand, \coprod appears in "Table 72: Variable-sized Math Operators" among \bigcup, \bigoplus and \sum. So these symbols should be used exactly as I described in the question.

  • One can see from \coprod_0^n in both textstyle and displaystyle that it behaves in the manner of \sum. In contrast, \amalg does not change size/limit-style in displaystyle. As a binary operator, it behaves in the manner of + and -. – Steven B. Segletes May 2 '19 at 11:20
  • Thank you for pointing out the difference between their behavior. The real problem (led me to ask) is that I often annoyed when \coprod is used as a binary operator (but I don't have sound reasons for refusing). It would be better than my answer if there is some literature pointing out this as a common mistake. – Orat May 2 '19 at 11:34

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.