Live data from Hacker News

UnicodeMath – A Nearly Plain-Text Encoding of Mathematics (2016) [pdf]

unicode.org

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: UnicodeMath – A Nearly Plain-Text Encoding of Mathematics (2016) [pdf]

#41
post #30
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can't type α, ∂, or ∫ in a standard keyboard.

I feel like this is the sweet spot for the editor to do some of the heavy lifting, for example being able to type "\alpha" and have the editor automatically transform it into the symbol α. I write a lot of LaTeX, and I would absolutely love an editor which could just transparently deal with all of the underlying mathematics markup so I would never have to see it again, and just directly edit the damn equations. Seria…

If you like Atom, there is https://atom.io/packages/latex-completions

Re: UnicodeMath – A Nearly Plain-Text Encoding of Mathematics (2016) [pdf]

#43
post #18
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can on a Mac. Holding the option key allows typing a whole host of symbols. https://beebom.com/how-type-hidden-mac-keyboard-symbols/

Right, and you can do the same on linux with the compose key. But it isn't very intuitive, discoverable or rememberable.

> you can do the same on linux with the compose key. But it isn't very intuitive, discoverable or rememberable.

Well, LaTeX itself is not very discoverable either

Re: UnicodeMath – A Nearly Plain-Text Encoding of Mathematics (2016) [pdf]

#44
post #24

I thought the format of the document looked familiar... and then saw "Microsoft Corporation". I've seen a lot of other documents from them with the same formatting, and it always feels a bit weird to me --- something looks a bit off about the (body) font.

Cambria. Personally I don't like it much, although I don't hate it as much as Computer Modern or Times. The main reason here is most likely that Cambria is also Microsoft's primary math typeface and having the body text and math use the same typeface is IMHO preferable. Constantia pairs fairly well with Cambria as well, though.

> I don't hate it as much as Computer Modern or Times.

What (latex compatible) fonts do you like/recommend then?

In my opinion, it's kind of sad to see how strongly Computer Modern dominates the font choices in latex (and more generally the latex monoculture).

Re: UnicodeMath – A Nearly Plain-Text Encoding of Mathematics (2016) [pdf]

#45
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> E = m * c^2 The problem then occurs when you work in a multidisciplinary group and 'everybody' wants to use 'p' or 'c' or whatever mean the the super obvious thing it means in their field and you have to remember what each letter means in 6 different fields and the 'p' in function f means something completely different from the 'p' in function g.

> the 'p' in function f means something completely different from the 'p' in function g. And that's OK. The 'x' in mathematics means completely different things depending on the equation. That's what comments are for, to explain the meaning of the local variables on each function. // E: energy of the thing // m: mass of the thing // c: constant representing the speed of light in vacuum E = m * c^2 I cannot read multi…

I suppose you have the same problem when reading this comment too.

Re: UnicodeMath – A Nearly Plain-Text Encoding of Mathematics (2016) [pdf]

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the 'p' in function f means something completely different from the 'p' in function g. And that's OK. The 'x' in mathematics means completely different things depending on the equation. That's what comments are for, to explain the meaning of the local variables on each function. // E: energy of the thing // m: mass of the thing // c: constant representing the speed of light in vacuum E = m * c^2 I cannot read multi…

I suppose you have the same problem when reading this comment too.

no, I do not mistake regular text with mathematical formulas. My problem is that I read code as if it was mathematical formulas.

Re: UnicodeMath – A Nearly Plain-Text Encoding of Mathematics (2016) [pdf]

#47
post #30
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can't type α, ∂, or ∫ in a standard keyboard.

I feel like this is the sweet spot for the editor to do some of the heavy lifting, for example being able to type "\alpha" and have the editor automatically transform it into the symbol α. I write a lot of LaTeX, and I would absolutely love an editor which could just transparently deal with all of the underlying mathematics markup so I would never have to see it again, and just directly edit the damn equations. Seria…

I use LaTeX with unicode-math regularly and I use emacs with quail mode to do exactly this.

Re: UnicodeMath – A Nearly Plain-Text Encoding of Mathematics (2016) [pdf]

#48
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and you can do the same on linux with the compose key. But it isn't very intuitive, discoverable or rememberable.

> you can do the same on linux with the compose key. But it isn't very intuitive, discoverable or rememberable. Well, LaTeX itself is not very discoverable either

It’s pretty good IMHO. Greek symbols are all obvious. \Omega and \omega for upper and lowercase omega etc. Super and subscripts with ^{} and _{} also work with \sum and \int for indices and intervals.

Software like Latexit and Mathpix also help a lot.

Re: UnicodeMath – A Nearly Plain-Text Encoding of Mathematics (2016) [pdf]

#49
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All I know is that LaTEX is much, much easier to manage than this jumbled mess... LaTeX is beautiful and powerful, but mixed with unicode (in the right doses) it becomes astonishingly more powerful. For example, you can keep the block constructors {} _ and ^, but use unicode symbols such as α, ∂, ∫, instead of \alpha, \partial, \int

But you can't type α, ∂, or ∫ in a standard keyboard.

You can do so relatively easily with Vim digraphs. For example, the alpha symbol can be obtained by typing

Ctrl-k a Shift-8

Post reply on HN