From: "Mirek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > No, they cannot be glyph variants. There is very big different in usage. > Those A,E shapes are _linear_ in form, the V-like symbols ARE NOT. The > condition after A,E symbol is written AFTER the symbols and in the V > standard the condition is usually written _UNDER_ the symbol.
I forgot this notation too, which looks like combining circumflex and caron above the quantified variable... Don't we already have a complete set mathematical combining angles? If you mean the notation used to note "such that" condition qualifying the quantifier, a common notation is to use a normal unqualified quantifier, and use an "imply" operator within the quantified expression between the condition and the assertion. but if you really want to use a condition below the quantifier, the way you note the quatifier itself is not related to the notation of the condition (you could as well use the standard reversed-A/E glyphs before the quantified variable and write the condition below it, as an interlinear notation). Do we need special codes then to represent the quantifier with a condition below, given that we already have the alternate angle diacritics above, and the common A-E-shaped separated glyphs and the alternate V-shaped separated glyphs, and interlinear format controls for notations below the baseline?
