Talk:AMS Euler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Typography (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Treatment?[edit]

Maybe this should be treated like all other typefaces... Shinobu 10:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning. Could you elaborate? Lupin 14:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Compare e.g. with Garamond, Times New Roman, Lucida, Mincho. They all have previews of the typeface and are linked to the category. The only things making this article computer-related are "first implemented in METAFONT" and Knuth had something to do with it. Shinobu 14:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The image still has a slanted integral sign, but Knuth specifically changed them for Concrete Mathematics ... could someone change the look here?

You're right, I'm uploading a new one real soon. -- (☺drini♫|) 23:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
ok I think it's ok again -- (☺drini♫|) 00:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you.

Question[edit]

Does AMS Euler actually have an upright integral symbol? (I don't think so, from what manual experimentation I did, so I could be wrong) Otherwise it doesn't really have much to do with AMS Euler at all. Dysprosia 04:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I haven't experimented, but from what I understand from Knuth's article "Typesetting Concrete Mathematics", it may have both. Knuth mentions that when he found out that the slanted integral sign did not fit very well with AMS Euler, he created a new mathematical font euex10 (part of the AMS Euler metafont) with the upright sign. So AMS Euler does seem to have an upright integral symbol. Schutz 09:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to use the necessary gkpmac macro to get it, but it doesn't appear to work right (I use my own format, which uses AMS Euler), unless there's some sort of skewchar or something that needs to be done. Dysprosia 10:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Don Knuth (ref above) indicate that he told TeX to use the new integral sign by saying \mathchardef\intop="1A52 and \mathchardef\intop="1A48, don't know if it helps ? Schutz 10:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. I need to look at the symbols and everything in detail, and I don't have much time on my hands at the moment... Dysprosia 06:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I found earlier a survey of free fonts for use with TeX at [1]. Of particular interest, it has a preview of Concrete with Euler and of Concrete Math. It looks like Euler has a vertical integral sign, while Concrete Math has a slanted one. Is this of any use in settling the argument about the integral symbol? 129.110.241.254 19:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect integral in example[edit]

At the bottom of the article, a definite integral is shown, but the result given is actually the antiderivative of the function. I would change this but I am not familiar with the image uploading process. Does this bother anyone else? Shutranm 11:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it. Just click "Upload file" on the left there. If you know what a "definite integral" and an "antiderivative" are, I think you're smart enough to figure out the image upload process. Be bold. —Chowbok 15:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well, it's generating the fixed image that's non-trivial, not uploading it. And it's probably not a case of smartness, but just not being bothered to find out how to generate it when someone else presumably already knows. Arbitrary username 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Kyle Barbour 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's still incorrect. A definite integral does not have a constant of integration... I second what Shutranm says about figuring out how to do it when someone else already knows how. Nickmai123 (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong with the example? The result given is 102, without any constant of integration. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)