8

When using XITS (with xelatex), the \not is displayed way too high on certain commands. For instance:

\documentclass{standalone}
\usepackage{unicode-math}
\setmathfont{XITS Math}

\def\nerode{\equiv}
\begin{document}
\huge$\not\models \not\nerode \not\equiv$
\end{document}

is displayed:

enter image description here

That is, only the \not\equiv which is probably a glyph by itself, is properly printed. Compare the above result with the following (without unicode-math and XITS Math):

enter image description here

What is the way to go to fix that?

Thanks!

1
  • 2
    The glyphs are already available as \nequiv for ≢ and \nvDash for ⊭
    – egreg
    Commented Nov 9, 2012 at 20:35

2 Answers 2

9

unicode-math should load predefined negation symbols when available, so \not\equiv is the same as \nequiv, but it seems not all aliases were taken care of (\not\vDash works but not \not\models).

unicode-math simply defines \not so that it checks the next csname, and if the there an n or not prefixed csname of that name, it will use it, else it will just put the slash.

A simple fix is to define \n… csnames of the ones that does not work for you, e.g.:

\let\nnerode\nequiv
\let\nmodels\nvDash
0
7

Usually \not is only a poor man's solution, overlaying a slash like glyph with the relational symbols that follows. However, the result could be improved by ligatures to select the right glyph. Probably this is the case with \not\equiv here.

Both negated characters are directly available. And in unicode-math-table.tex the macro names can be found:

  • ≢: U+2262 NOT IDENTICAL TO: \nequiv
  • ⊭: U+22AD NOT TRUE: \nvDash

Thus they can be used directly:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{unicode-math}
\setmathfont{XITS Math}

\begin{document}

$\nvDash\nequiv$ % standard names (unicode-math-table.tex)

$⊭≢$ % direct

\end{document}

Result

3
  • 1
    The predefined commands for these symbols are \nvDash and \nequiv (according to unimath-symbols).
    – Caramdir
    Commented Nov 9, 2012 at 20:11
  • @Caramdir Thanks. Answer modified accordingly. Commented Nov 9, 2012 at 20:56
  • @HeikoOberdiek: Thanks for your answer! Now I see that even \not\in is not the same as \notin in XITS. Gosh, all those years...
    – Michaël
    Commented Nov 11, 2012 at 16:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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