## LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

 Options: Use Forum View Use Monospaced Font Show Text Part by Default Condense Mail Headers Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>] Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

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:

> 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 equivalent---i.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.
>