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

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

 Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]> From: Roozbeh Pournader <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:51:02 +0430 In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]> Parts/Attachments: text/plain (38 lines) 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 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. >