[texhax] \ldots v. \cdots
Lars Madsen
daleif at imf.au.dk
Tue Mar 3 20:21:08 CET 2009
Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> P. R. Stanley:
>
>> I've come across both \ldots and \cdots in typesetting series in \sum
>> -- \{1 + 2 + 3 + ldots + n\}. What would the list recommend?
>
> I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the AMS recommendations. The document
> ‘Short Math Guide for LaTeX’ at http://www.ams.org/tex/amslatex.html says
>
> 4.6. Dots For preferred placement of ellipsis dots
> (raised or on-line) in various contexts there is no
> general consensus. It may therefore be considered a
> matter of taste. By using the semantically oriented
> commands
> * \dotsc for “dots with commas”
> * \dotsb for “dots with binary operators/relations”
> * \dotsm for “multiplication dots”
> * \dotsi for “dots with integrals”
> * \dotso for “other dots” (none of the above)
> instead of \ldots and \cdots, you make it possible for
> your document to be adapted to different conventions on
> the fly, in case (for example) you have to submit it to
> a publisher who insists on following house tradition in
> this respect. The default treatment for the various kinds
> follows American Mathematical Society conventions:
>
> We have the series $A_1,A_2,\dotsc$,
> the regional sum $A_1+A_2+\dotsb$,
> the orthogonal product $A_1A_2\dotsm$,
> and the infinite integral
> \[\int_{A_1}\int_{A_2}\dotsi\].
>
well aware, but try teaching that to users...
/daleif
More information about the texhax
mailing list