LaTeX Typesetting Dotless i and j with LaTeX

  • Thread starter Thread starter cepheid
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on how to typeset dotless 'i' and 'j' in LaTeX, noting that the standard commands \i and \j do not produce the desired results. Users suggest alternatives like \imath and \jmath, but these also present challenges in achieving boldface and upright formatting. A workaround involves defining macros using Unicode characters for dotless 'i' and 'j', allowing for more control over their appearance. The conversation highlights the clever use of negative space to create thicker representations of these characters. Overall, achieving the correct formatting for dotless 'i' and 'j' in LaTeX remains a nuanced challenge.
cepheid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
38
I'm wondering how to get dotless i and j in LaTeX on the forums. For some reason, \i and \j don't work for this. I can use \imath and \jmath, and I can even get carets on them to represent unit vectors:

\hat{\imath}, \hat{\jmath}

The only remaining problem is that I can't get them to be typeset in boldface and upright as vectors traditionally are. If I do this hack:

\hat{\textbf{$\imath$}}, \hat{\textbf{$\jmath$}}

then I can get them boldface, but still not upright. I think that the glyphs for \imath and \jmath are inherently italicized and there is no way to change this. Any suggestions for the OCD among us?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
robphy said:
From
http://groups.google.com/group/math...roup/mathjax-users/browse_frm/month/2010-11?&
MathJax can use unicode...

\mbox{abcdefgh}\ \unicode{x0131}\unicode{x0237}\ \mbox{klmnopqrstuvwyz}

You could define a macro for \i and \j
\def\i{\unicode{x0131}} \i \def\j{\unicode{x0237}} \j (right-click show source)

then use it later
\i i\mbox{i} \j j\mbox{j}

So, definitions that people make using \def are universal and permanent (or at least persist until some user gives the same macro a different definition)?

In any case, it still doesn't work:

\def\i{\unicode{x0131}} \hat{\mathbf{\i}}
 
How's this?

\def\ihat{\hat{\unicode{x0131}\!\!\unicode{x0131}}} \ihat \def\jhat{\hat{\unicode{x0237}\!\!\!\unicode{x0237}}} \jhat

8\ihat + 6\jhat

I suspect your \defs are local to your post.
 
robphy said:
How's this?

\def\ihat{\hat{\unicode{x0131}\!\!\unicode{x0131}}} \ihat \def\jhat{\hat{\unicode{x0237}\!\!\!\unicode{x0237}}} \jhat

8\ihat + 6\jhat

I suspect your \defs are local to your post.

That's very interesting! I just read that \! inserts a small negative space. So you have two unicode dotless i's slightly overlapping each other to produce a thicker one. It's very clever. Why the extra space for the j? Why not:


\def\jhat{\hat{\unicode{x0237}\!\!\unicode{x0237}}} \jhat


Ah. That's why. A line thickness problem.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
16K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
766
Views
737K
Back
Top