Typesetting Dotless i and j with LaTeX

  • Context: LaTeX 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cepheid
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around typesetting dotless i and j in LaTeX, specifically focusing on methods to achieve boldface and upright representations of these characters. Participants explore various approaches, including the use of Unicode and custom macros.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that \i and \j do not produce dotless characters and suggests using \imath and \jmath instead, but encounters issues with boldface and upright formatting.
  • Another participant introduces the use of Unicode for dotless i and j, providing a method to define macros for these characters.
  • A subsequent post questions the permanence of macro definitions, suggesting that they may be local to individual posts.
  • One participant proposes a method to create bold dotless i and j using overlapping Unicode characters, while another inquires about the necessity of additional spacing in the j representation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the effectiveness of different methods for typesetting dotless i and j, with no clear consensus on the best approach. Some methods are challenged or refined, but disagreements about their effectiveness remain.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include uncertainty about the permanence of macro definitions and the specific formatting capabilities of LaTeX versus MathJax.

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 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
17K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 766 ·
26
Replies
766
Views
743K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K