LaTeX Typesetting Dotless i and j with LaTeX

  • Thread starter Thread starter cepheid
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on typesetting dotless 'i' and 'j' in LaTeX, specifically addressing the limitations of using \i and \j commands. Users found that while \imath and \jmath can be utilized, achieving boldface and upright typesetting for these characters requires workarounds. The suggested solutions include defining macros using Unicode characters for dotless 'i' and 'j', such as \def\i{\unicode{x0131}} and \def\j{\unicode{x0237}}, and using negative space adjustments to create visually appealing representations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Familiarity with LaTeX syntax and commands
  • Understanding of Unicode character encoding
  • Knowledge of mathematical typesetting conventions
  • Basic experience with defining macros in LaTeX
NEXT STEPS
  • Research how to use Unicode in LaTeX for special characters
  • Learn about LaTeX macro definitions and their scope
  • Explore advanced typesetting techniques for mathematical symbols in LaTeX
  • Investigate the use of negative space in LaTeX for visual adjustments
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, LaTeX users, and anyone involved in typesetting mathematical documents who require precise control over character representation.

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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 766 ·
26
Replies
766
Views
741K