# Copy-and-paste math symbols, short list

Posted Sep7-08 at 07:32 AM by Redbelly98
Updated Oct7-09 at 08:25 AM by Redbelly98 (Added "θ = °" to popular combinations)
Tags

.

Symbols viewable to everybody:

α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ ς σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω . . . . . Γ Δ Θ Λ Ξ Π Σ Φ Ψ Ω

∂ ∫ ∏ ∑ . . . . . ← → ↓ ↑ ↔ . . . . . ± − · × ÷ √ . . . . . ¼ ½ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞

∞ ° ² ³ ⁿ Å . . . . . ~ ≈ ≠ ≡ ≤ ≥ « » . . . . . † ‼

Bold, Times New Roman font (some symbols look better that way):

α .. [FONT="Times New Roman"][b]α[/b][/FONT]
γ .. [FONT="Times New Roman"][b]γ[/b][/FONT]
ν .. [FONT="Times New Roman"][b]ν[/b][/FONT]
π .. [FONT="Times New Roman"][b]π[/b][/FONT]
χ .. [FONT="Times New Roman"][b]χ[/b][/FONT]
ψ .. [FONT="Times New Roman"][b]ψ[/b][/FONT]
Π .. [FONT="Times New Roman"][b]Π[/b][/FONT]
Φ .. [FONT="Times New Roman"][b]Φ[/b][/FONT]
Ψ .. [FONT="Times New Roman"][b]Ψ[/b][/FONT]

Popular combinations, grouped together for convenient copy-and-paste:

→∞ . . ±√ . . θ = ° . . ∂² . . ω² . . (x-μ)²/2σ² . . ω=2πν . . λν . .2π/λ . . μΩ . .

1/4πεo .. 1/4[font="Times New Roman"][b]πε[/b][sub]o[/sub][/font]

χ² .. [font="Times New Roman"][b]χ[/b][/font]²

A .. A[SUP]†[/SUP]

_____________________________

Not viewable to all users (please try to avoid these):

∇ ⋅ ∗ ∝ ∠ ∧ ∴ ∼ ≅ ∃ ℏ . . . . . ↵ ⇐ ⇑ ⇒ ⇓ ⇔
Posted in Uncategorized
« Prev     Main     Next »

1.  This is very useful indeed! Thanks! The very first symbol should be "alpha" but it is just an "a". Posted Oct20-09 at 04:18 PM by Delphi51
2.  Hi, You're welcome. It does look like an "a" in Arial font, but in Times New Roman it looks more like the Greek alpha that it is supposed to be. Scroll down the page a bit to see. Unfortunately, Arial font does not do a good job with several Greek letters. Gamma looks like a y, and pi looks more like an n than anything else. Thank you for your comments. Posted Oct21-09 at 07:24 AM by Redbelly98
3.  Ah, too bad. I find it too obscuring to copy all that code just to get a nice alpha. Thanks again! Posted Oct23-09 at 08:32 PM by Delphi51
4.  Thanks. Posted Apr14-10 at 07:42 AM by Sweet_GirL
5.  I just saw that you included · and ~ in both the viewable and not-viewable sections.... Do you already know which it is? And as yet I'm missing a few symbols like "is element of", "is subset of", "empty set", "intersection of sets", ... And "logical not", "logical and", ... Here are a few of the symbols I've found for myself that might be handy: ∊ ∩∪⊂⊃⊄ ⊅ ⊆⊈ Ø ∀∃ ¬∧∨ □ ℓ ∓ ⋀⋁⋂⋃∈∉∅ Of course I have no clue which ones are not viewable to every one. Posted Aug6-11 at 10:11 AM by I like Serena
6.  This is weird. My test for "viewable to everybody" was that I could include the character in a text file, and that it was visible in Notepad. "·" and "⋅" are actually different characters -- seeing the distinction might depend on what font you use to view them. One was viewable in Notepad, one was not, and so they got put into different categories of "viewableness". Same for ~ and ∼. However, when I checked the characters again just now, all are now visible in Notepad. All the characters I listed as "Not viewable" are visible in Notepad. I don't know what this means in terms of other people being able to see them however. It was definitely true, about 3 years ago, that at least 1 person could not see the "Not viewable" characters in their browser. I have upgraded my OS from Windows XP to Windows 7 in the intervening time, I wonder if that has something to do with it. At any rate, since our upgrade to MathJax, it is easy enough to use LaTeX for symbols if there's any doubt about viewability. Posted Aug6-11 at 12:32 PM by Redbelly98 Updated Aug6-11 at 12:47 PM by Redbelly98
7.  Interesting. :) In Linux/Firefox the center dots looked the same, and so did the tilde (and the minus). In XP/IE7 the center dots look different, and the minus doesn't look like a tilde. I also checked Notepad in XP and I can confirm that the non-viewable characters are not visible in XP/Notepad. Furthermore, from the symbols I gave in my previous post, the only ones visible in XP/Notepad are: ∩ ¬ Ø. Btw, I still use these symbols since LaTeX is often slow, and the screen keeps jumping up and down. And every now and then, a member apparently gets the raw LaTeX. I do find it too obscuring to use the Times Roman font, so after experimenting a bit, I decided to usually write "pi" and "alpha". ;) Posted Aug8-11 at 11:33 AM by I like Serena Updated Aug8-11 at 11:39 AM by I like Serena
8.  Quote: Quote by Redbelly98 This is weird. My test for "viewable to everybody" was that I could include the character in a text file, and that it was visible in Notepad. You will find that any modern web browser will have better unicode support than Notepad. Notepad uses the default encoding of the OS, with in XP and Vista would _not_ be UTF-8. This may be fixed in Windows Seven, users have been crying for it for years. If your intention is that the characters show in a web browser, then you don't need a "won't show for everybody" option. Of course, this is all assuming that there are fonts with the appropriate glyphs installed in the OS. So far as I know, every desktop OS has all the fonts with glyphs for those symbols available to software such as the web browser. If there is an exception then I'd like to know. I run http://gibberish.co.il and deal with this stuff. Thanks for the useful post! Posted Aug14-11 at 10:01 AM by dotancohen
9.  Quote: Quote by I like Serena Interesting. :) In Linux/Firefox the center dots looked the same, and so did the tilde (and the minus). In XP/IE7 the center dots look different, and the minus doesn't look like a tilde. Which Linux distro? On a recent Kubuntu (Ubuntu with KDE) I see the dots slightly-different (I wouldn't have noticed the difference if I wasn't looking for it) but the tilde and the other squiggly symbol look completely different. Posted Aug14-11 at 10:18 AM by dotancohen
10.  Quote: Quote by dotancohen Which Linux distro? On a recent Kubuntu (Ubuntu with KDE) I see the dots slightly-different (I wouldn't have noticed the difference if I wasn't looking for it) but the tilde and the other squiggly symbol look completely different. Now that I look closer, I do see a difference in both symbols. However in XP/IE7 the difference is much more noticeable, and the non-viewable squiggly symbol looks like a minus sign. Btw, there was a thread somewhere, where it became clear that not everyone could see all symbols (in Opera IIRC). XP/Notepad seemed to match the differences pretty well. Posted Aug14-11 at 03:22 PM by I like Serena
11.  Quote: Quote by dotancohen You will find that any modern web browser will have better unicode support than Notepad. Notepad uses the default encoding of the OS, with in XP and Vista would _not_ be UTF-8. This may be fixed in Windows Seven, users have been crying for it for years. If your intention is that the characters show in a web browser, then you don't need a "won't show for everybody" option. Of course, this is all assuming that there are fonts with the appropriate glyphs installed in the OS. So far as I know, every desktop OS has all the fonts with glyphs for those symbols available to software such as the web browser. If there is an exception then I'd like to know. I run http://gibberish.co.il and deal with this stuff. Thanks for the useful post! You're welcome! PF member Kurdt had mentioned (about 3 years ago) that he couldn't see some of the symbols. There might have been 1 or 2 other members who noted having the same problem. At the time, what they could or could not see was consistent with the Notepad test. Kurdt was using Windows XP, as was I at the time, so we don't think it was an OS issue. I'm not sure what browser Kurdt was using; I was (and still am) using Firefox. There is no rule against using the "not viewable" characters in your posts, just the caveat that there are (or were) a minority of people out there who would not be able to view them. Posted Aug14-11 at 05:32 PM by Redbelly98
12.  Thanks redbelly! Posted Oct31-11 at 01:49 PM by rude man
13.  Quote: Quote by rude man Thanks redbelly! But could you not include nabla? Often needed. Posted Oct31-11 at 01:50 PM by rude man
14.  A small percentage of members may not be able to see the nabla if you use the copy-and-paste method. Instead, you can use LaTeX by typing $\nabla f(x)$ to get $\nabla f(x)$ Posted Nov3-11 at 10:23 AM by Redbelly98