Well, with the latest version of Unicode, 3.1, \varepsilon is a different
thing from \epsilon. Just take a look at:
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf
The code points are U+03B5 and U+03F5.
roozbeh
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Phil Parker wrote:
> On 05/15/2001 at 03:04 PM, Lars Hellström <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >I math fonts something like that could be used to handle the choice
> >between \epsilon and \varepsilon. As I understand it, these are
> >semantically equivalenti.e., people will think you've done something
> >wrong if you try to use them both in the same formula to mean different
> >things
> >
> Some might, but most (at least in the parts of math I read) wouldn't. The
> general rule of thumb seems to be: if they look different, they are
> (mathematically) different. In my experience, more mathematicians would
> think it wrong to try and claim \epsilon and \varepsilon did mean the same,
> and I know some journal editors that would change it. Note that \in is
> merely a stylized \epsilon, but is mathematically distinct from all the
> other "epsilon" variants nowadays. (Before the standardization of the \in
> symbol, \epsilon was used to mean "is an element of"  and sometimes to
> also be the classical analysis "epsilon" in the same formula!)
>
> 
> Phil Parker
> 
> URL http://www.math.twsu.edu/Faculty/Parker/
> Random quote:
> Reality is an obstacle to hallucination.
>
