On 05/21/2001 at 11:20 PM, Lars Hellström <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >At least about this aspect of it we can do something. The guidance given >by LaTeX manuals and the like on what is sensible and what is not is, in >this area, rather important. > It may be important to LaTeX designers, but it is totally irrelevant to working mathematicians, who will use whatever symbols they deem appropriate with no deference to anyone else's notions of propriety. Collaborations have been known to spend more time arguing about notation than proving theorems. As for examples, they exist -- I've seen more than one. If you haven't, and don't want to take anyone's word for their existence, then it is entirely appropriate that you spend the time and effort looking for them. One suggestion for help would be to inquire on a math newsgroup. There is a good list of them available at mathforum.com. A history-of-math oriented list might be the most fruitful. -- Phil Parker -------------------------------------------- URL http://www.math.twsu.edu/Faculty/Parker/ Random quote: The difference between a misfortune and a calamity? If Gladstone fell into the Thames, it would be a misfortune. But if someone dragged him out again, it would be a calamity. ---Benjamin Disraeli