Hans Hagen wrote:
(concerning the definemathcharacters, we need input from taco on that
because he knows what goes on deep inside tex and has done complex
math typesetting for ages)
The \definemathcharacter macro is a actually quite simple, it is
mostly a syntactic wrapper around \mathcode
Adam Lindsay wrote:
Now, do digits ever get bold-ed in mixed bold and regular math?
AFAIK, only in courseware (and perhaps other explanatory texts,
like errata). There, the required emphasis can be anything, really,
but nobody would object to a \hbox{} wrapper either.
Cheers, Taco
Very interesting, but with these definitions, I can't get roman
characters in formulae. For the moment, the best solution for me is
still the hbox wrapper.
David
Adam Lindsay wrote:
\startmathcollection[default] %eventual patch for math-tex?
\definemathcharacter [a] [nothing] [mi] [61]
David Munger wrote:
Very interesting, but with these definitions, I can't get roman
characters in formulae. For the moment, the best solution for me is
still the hbox wrapper.
Okay.
What do you mean by can't get roman characters? Can you give an
minimal example?
adam
Adam Lindsay wrote:
Adam Lindsay wrote :
David Munger wrote:
Very interesting, but with these definitions, I can't get roman
characters in formulae. For the moment, the best solution for me is
still the hbox wrapper.
Okay.
What do you mean by can't get roman characters? Can you give an
minimal example?
David Munger wrote:
Adam Lindsay wrote :
David Munger wrote:
Very interesting, but with these definitions, I can't get roman
characters in formulae. For the moment, the best solution for me is
still the hbox wrapper.
Okay.
What do you mean by can't get roman characters? Can you give an
Adam Lindsay wrote :
David Munger wrote:
Adam Lindsay wrote :
David Munger wrote:
Very interesting, but with these definitions, I can't get roman
characters in formulae. For the moment, the best solution for me is
still the hbox wrapper.
Okay.
What do you mean by can't get roman
Adam Lindsay wrote:
David Munger wrote:
Adam Lindsay wrote :
David Munger wrote:
Very interesting, but with these definitions, I can't get roman
characters in formulae. For the moment, the best solution for me is
still the hbox wrapper.
Okay.
What do you mean by
Adam Lindsay wrote:
\startmathcollection[default] %eventual patch for math-tex?
\definemathcharacter [a] [nothing] [mi] [61]
\definemathcharacter [b] [nothing] [mi] [62]
\definemathcharacter [c] [nothing] [mi] [63]
\definemathcharacter [d] [nothing] [mi] [64]
\definemathcharacter
Hans Hagen wrote:
taco is the math expert ...
At the moment, I don't understand this math vs. typescript stuff
any better than the next person, I'm afraid. There are a number of
(perhaps conflicting?) ways of getting 'bold math' in your text,
and I have not the faintest clue which one is
Taco, thanks for the answer. I managed to change the whole math family
into bold, but I can't get the following example working:
\switchtobodyfont[iwona-light,ss]
$$normal {\bf bold}{\bfm bold}{\bfmath bold}$$
\bf and \bfmath result in cm fonts, \bfm has no influence, no matter
what I tried to
Hans Hagen wrote:
Mojca Miklavec wrote:
I'm also able to get the complete formula typeset in bold iwona, but I
don't know how to get something like $-{\bf\nabla}\phi={\bi E}$, where
\phi would be typeset in iwona-light and the rest in iwona-heavy for
example.
maybe a way out is something
Hi Mojca,
I must say I understand about nothing about fonts in ConTeXt. But I've
somehow managed do define a bold vector command, working in my
environment. I hope it helps.
\definetypeface [boldmath] [mm] [boldmath] [latin-modern] [default]
% boldsymbol work-around
Mojca Miklavec wrote:
. I grep-ed for bfmath and boldmath and tried to
replace them, but no success at all. See the attached file for my
attempts.
Yeah, that's what got me confused as well.
I'll try to sort all this bold/not bold/fake bold/wrong bold math
out (unless someone else
Hello,
What exactly is the ConTeXt alternative to LaTeX's \mathbf (switch to
bold or bold italic math fonts)?
(Btw: is it better to use bold or bold italic for typesetting vectors?
We use overrightharpoonup, so I don't know what an international
standard says.)
I understand the main commands
What exactly is the ConTeXt alternative to LaTeX's \mathbf (switch to
bold or bold italic math fonts)?
I can't help you here, but did you read http://wiki.contextgarden.net/
Bold_Math ?
Grüßlis vom Hraban!
---
http://www.fiee.net/texnique/
http://contextgarden.net
http://www.cacert.org (I'm
Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
What exactly is the ConTeXt alternative to LaTeX's \mathbf (switch to
bold or bold italic math fonts)?
I can't help you here, but did you read http://wiki.contextgarden.net/
Bold_Math ?
I tried a couple of tricks, but none of them resulted in bold italic iwona.
Mojca Miklavec wrote:
Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
What exactly is the ConTeXt alternative to LaTeX's \mathbf (switch to
bold or bold italic math fonts)?
I can't help you here, but did you read http://wiki.contextgarden.net/
Bold_Math ?
I tried a couple of tricks, but none of
18 matches
Mail list logo
