5

I'm using amsbook with amsthm. It seems that amsbook customized the theorem environment so that the theorem name (eg Theorem 1) is written in big caps and small caps, which is fine for me. But I want to make it bold. How to do it?

0

1 Answer 1

7

In order to get bold small-caps in the header of a theorem, you'll need to "patch" two commands inside the \@thm macro, as is done in the following MWE:

\documentclass{amsbook}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
%\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath} % optional, e.g., if you want Times Roman font family
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd{\@thm}{\thm@headfont{\scshape}}{\thm@headfont{\scshape\bfseries}}{}{}
\patchcmd{\@thm}{\thm@notefont{\fontseries\mddefault\upshape}}{}{}{}
\makeatother
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\begin{document}

\begin{theorem}[Pythagoras]
Let the lengths of the sides of a right triangle be denoted by $a$, $b$, 
and $c$, and assume w.l.o.g.\ that $a\le b<c$. Then $a^2+b^2=c^2$.
\end{theorem}
\end{document}

enter image description here

Addendum: Just for comparison, here's the look that would result without the patches:

enter image description here

I don't want to pass judgment on which style looks better. However, it's worth pointing out that, from an overall design point of view, it is often questionable to use two methods of visual emphasis simultaneously (in the first case above, the joint use of small-caps and of bold). I suppose this design issue may be one of the reasons why the original Computer Modern fonts didn't include bold-smallcaps, italic-smallcaps, etc combinations.

5
  • 1
    +1, but I'd also note that "double emphasis" is something to avoid whenever possible.
    – egreg
    Commented Jul 15, 2012 at 15:08
  • @egreg -- Thanks for pointing out this issue -- I fully agree with it.
    – Mico
    Commented Jul 15, 2012 at 15:10
  • One thing to keep in mind regarding "double emphasis" is the quality of the output. What stands out in a quality printed book may not stand out if the pages are printed out on a low quality printer. Of course, that is becoming less and less of an issue.
    – Bryan H-M
    Commented Jun 7, 2018 at 20:09
  • @Mico not working for me.
    – ShBh
    Commented Mar 31 at 7:18
  • @ShBh - Would you mind being a bit more specific? Sadly, but probably not surprisingly, my mind-reading skills are utterly worthless; if you don't tell me what it is that's "not working" for you, don't expect me to be able to guess it on my own. Aside: I just now recompiled the code shown above, and it "works" in the sense that it still produces the exact same output as it did back in July 2012. If the code doesn't work for you, it must be because your document setup differs materially from mine. Hence, do please share some relevant information. Thanks in advance.
    – Mico
    Commented Mar 31 at 9:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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