6 ms·

In my opinion, the Monotype caster with a competent operator, the Modern Series 7 typeface, and the 4-line system produced mathematical typesetting not yet surp

In my opinion, the Monotype caster with a competent operator, the Modern Series 7 typeface, and the 4-line system produced mathematical typesetting not yet surpassed. There is no contemporary system for typesetting mathematics that can produce such beautiful compositions as the Monotype did. TeX is phenomenal. And Computer Modern was a Herculean effort by Knuth, but in my opinion, it’s wholly lacking in many departments. It’s spindly, clinical, and vapid. But I don’t blame Knuth; we just need a serious typographer to learn METAFONT and make a beautiful typeface for mathematics that is not gimmicky.

Isamu 7y ago
> we just need a serious typographer Well, that is why Hermann Zapf was commissioned to design AMS Euler. Knuth supplied the METAFONT and critiqued it in iterations by trying it out.
- reikonomusha 7y ago
  I’ll be honest. I consider AMS Euler to be a gimmick. Yes, real books by serious mathematicians have used it, but it’s so non-traditional that it has not been broadly accepted. (Zapf is a real typographer of course. But the project, to me, is more of an exercise in avant garde typography than one to supplant “standard” mathematical type.)
  - mikorym 7y ago
    I think that depends on whether you want your stuff to look like some definition of traditional. The equations in AMS Euler look good to me. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMS_Euler#/media/File:AMS_Euler_example.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMS_Euler#/media/File:AMS_Eule...
    - Koshkin 7y ago
      They look terrible, in fact. This is no way to typeset equations. (For example, variables should be set in italics.)
      - ygra 7y ago
        Variables have their own style here. Compare i sin y and the difference between the variable i and the i in sin.
  - svat 7y ago
    Yes AMS Euler is very nontraditional as mathematical typesetting goes — to put it in terms of Zapf's oeuvre, it's not Palatino or Optima but rather Zapfino. :-) Looking at what was written/expected before it was created, it can probably be seen as somewhat of a disappointment. But it was created to mimic the style of mathematicians writing by hand on a blackboard, and I must say that in the book Concrete Mathematics (reading which was, in retrospect, one of the highlights of my life) it works very well, going well with the book's conversational style, the irreverent margin graffiti by students, etc.
delhanty 7y ago
What is your opinion of Concrete Roman? [0] >Concrete Roman is a slab serif typeface designed by Donald Knuth using his METAFONT program. It was intended to accompany the Euler mathematical font which it partners in Knuth's book Concrete Mathematics. It has a darker appearance than its more famous sibling, Computer Modern. Some favour it for use on the computer screen because of this, as the thinner strokes of Computer Modern can make it hard to read at low resolutions. I have the referenced book Concrete Mathematics by Graham, Knuth and Patashnik. To my uninformed eye it looks pleasing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_Roman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_Roman
- reikonomusha 7y ago
  Concrete, AMS Euler, and Computer Modern are all perfectly legible. Concrete suffers from being incomplete in terms of headings, lack of sans-serif, and not having a complete matching mathematical typeface. (The math in Concrete, especially with integrals and sums, looks awful.) It is still leagues behind Modern Series 7, though.
kick 7y ago
Your criticism of Computer Modern as "spindly" makes sense only digitally, not in print (or, at least, print of the era Computer Modern was designed for). Optimized for printers of a different era (and relying heavily on ink bleed), Computer Modern's default configuration looks less than great on today's printed page. However, if you make some small adjustments (as METAFONT was designed to do), it suddenly becomes rather pleasant. Here's a page with an example of how it looked initially compared to how it looks on modern printers, and a modification of the METAFONT parameters that looks pleasant on screens: https://www.typografie.info/3/topic/22238-ist-die-computer-modern-wirklich-zu-d%C3%BCnn/ https://www.typografie.info/3/topic/22238-ist-die-computer-m... Most modern digital adaptions are done poorly, and without considering this. METAFONT is really simple, and more people should consider playing around with it. It's really fantastic.
- mod50ack 7y ago
  This is not usually noticeable, because TeX distributions now use a Type 1 version of CM, distributed by AMS, when compiling documents to PostScript or PDF. (Or, they use Latin Modern, which is based on this Type 1 version which is so spindly in the first place.) To use an adaptation which is thicker in print, and which uses the original METAFONT settings, check out mpfonts: https://ctan.org/pkg/mpfonts https://ctan.org/pkg/mpfonts. However, note that on screen, mpfonts usually doesn't look so great, since the fonts are Type 3 adaptations of the METAFONT programs and not Type 1 fonts.
- daffy 7y ago
  It would be nice to have a PDF filter to imitate ink bleed.
gerikson 7y ago
Was Modern Series 7 compatible with the 4-line system? The thesis seems to imply the 4-line system and Times New Roman Series 569 were linked. (page 13 compares hand-set Series 7 with 4-line set Series 569).
- reikonomusha 7y ago
  That is a great question, and I might be misremembering that detail.
mikorym 7y ago
I used Palatino for my thesis. The only downside is that the typefacing of mathematics is less standardised than Computer Modern. You have to play around with things in that regard. Edit: I think AMS Euler for the equations and Palatino for text is not a bad idea.
quietbritishjim 7y ago
> Computer Modern was a Herculean effort by Knuth, but in my opinion, it’s wholly lacking in many departments. It’s spindly, clinical, and vapid. I strongly agree, I hate how Computer Modern looks, especially because of what you describe as being "spindly" - it's exceptionally light. If you use any other font for body text then the contrast is overwhelming, when the maths and text ought to just flow together. You can use it for body text too but then the whole page looks a mess. > ... make a beautiful typeface for mathematics that is not gimmicky. My favourite text/maths combinations: * Palatino for text and Pazo [1] for maths. I am a big fan of Palatino, and Pazo is derived from it - I'm not sure what the exact relationship is but to me they look like basically the same font. For me, this is the direct answer to your question of a "beautiful typeface for mathematics". Perhaps not every symbol in the TeX package was hand-designed for the font, but I haven't noticed any real clash. The only problem is that it's such a radical departure from traditional TeX fonts that it might be a bit ubrupt for some people. My PhD supervisor certainly didn't like me using it (he thought I had used totally different typesetting software and told me to "just use TeX like everybody else"). \usepackage[slantedGreek]{mathpazo} \usepackage{upgreek} % Euler upright Greek; matches Palatino quite well * This is a very unfashionable opinion but I actually think Times is a very readable font and works well with mathematics. I used the times [4] package (although I note it now says you should load the font a different way) with the commercial but very affordable mtpro2 [5] * I often used Utopia for both text and maths [3]. This is more of a compromise as it looks a tiny bit like Computer Modern (to its discredit) but is more like more conventional fonts and definitely doesn't have CM's weight problem. It's actually somewhat similar to Microsoft's Cambria and Cambria Math. \usepackage[utopia,greekuppercase=italicized]{mathdesign} % for math \usepackage{esint} % make integrals look less silly \newcommand{\mathbold}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}} * I found people (maybe just my supervisor!) still had a problem with using Utopia as the text font so I settled on the super-compromise of Times text with Utopia math for my thesis; I'd have prefered the fonts to be identical but these go fairly well and certainly their weights don't clash (unlike CM with anything else). * For presentations I think it's best to use a san-serif font. The most complete combination I've been able to find is CM Bright for text/math [6] and esstixbb for blackboard bold (with beramono for fixed-width) \usepackage[slantedGreek]{cmbright} \usepackage{esstixbb} \usepackage[scaled]{beramono} [1] https://ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/mathpazo?lang=en https://ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/mathpazo?lang=en [2] https://ctan.org/pkg/upgreek?lang=en https://ctan.org/pkg/upgreek?lang=en [3] https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/utopia-mathdesign/ https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/utopia-mathdesign/ [4] https://ctan.org/pkg/times?lang=en https://ctan.org/pkg/times?lang=en [5] https://www.pctex.com/mtpro2.html https://www.pctex.com/mtpro2.html [6] https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/computermodernbright/ https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/computermodernbright/

Isamu 7y ago

> we just need a serious typographer Well, that is why Hermann Zapf was commissioned to design AMS Euler. Knuth supplied the METAFONT and critiqued it in iterations by trying it out.

reikonomusha 7y ago
I’ll be honest. I consider AMS Euler to be a gimmick. Yes, real books by serious mathematicians have used it, but it’s so non-traditional that it has not been broadly accepted. (Zapf is a real typographer of course. But the project, to me, is more of an exercise in avant garde typography than one to supplant “standard” mathematical type.)
- mikorym 7y ago
  I think that depends on whether you want your stuff to look like some definition of traditional. The equations in AMS Euler look good to me. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMS_Euler#/media/File:AMS_Euler_example.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMS_Euler#/media/File:AMS_Eule...
  - Koshkin 7y ago
    They look terrible, in fact. This is no way to typeset equations. (For example, variables should be set in italics.)
    - ygra 7y ago
      Variables have their own style here. Compare i sin y and the difference between the variable i and the i in sin.
- svat 7y ago
  Yes AMS Euler is very nontraditional as mathematical typesetting goes — to put it in terms of Zapf's oeuvre, it's not Palatino or Optima but rather Zapfino. :-) Looking at what was written/expected before it was created, it can probably be seen as somewhat of a disappointment. But it was created to mimic the style of mathematicians writing by hand on a blackboard, and I must say that in the book Concrete Mathematics (reading which was, in retrospect, one of the highlights of my life) it works very well, going well with the book's conversational style, the irreverent margin graffiti by students, etc.

delhanty 7y ago

What is your opinion of Concrete Roman? [0] >Concrete Roman is a slab serif typeface designed by Donald Knuth using his METAFONT program. It was intended to accompany the Euler mathematical font which it partners in Knuth's book Concrete Mathematics. It has a darker appearance than its more famous sibling, Computer Modern. Some favour it for use on the computer screen because of this, as the thinner strokes of Computer Modern can make it hard to read at low resolutions. I have the referenced book Concrete Mathematics by Graham, Knuth and Patashnik. To my uninformed eye it looks pleasing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_Roman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_Roman

reikonomusha 7y ago
Concrete, AMS Euler, and Computer Modern are all perfectly legible. Concrete suffers from being incomplete in terms of headings, lack of sans-serif, and not having a complete matching mathematical typeface. (The math in Concrete, especially with integrals and sums, looks awful.) It is still leagues behind Modern Series 7, though.

kick 7y ago

Your criticism of Computer Modern as "spindly" makes sense only digitally, not in print (or, at least, print of the era Computer Modern was designed for). Optimized for printers of a different era (and relying heavily on ink bleed), Computer Modern's default configuration looks less than great on today's printed page. However, if you make some small adjustments (as METAFONT was designed to do), it suddenly becomes rather pleasant. Here's a page with an example of how it looked initially compared to how it looks on modern printers, and a modification of the METAFONT parameters that looks pleasant on screens: https://www.typografie.info/3/topic/22238-ist-die-computer-modern-wirklich-zu-d%C3%BCnn/ https://www.typografie.info/3/topic/22238-ist-die-computer-m... Most modern digital adaptions are done poorly, and without considering this. METAFONT is really simple, and more people should consider playing around with it. It's really fantastic.

mod50ack 7y ago
This is not usually noticeable, because TeX distributions now use a Type 1 version of CM, distributed by AMS, when compiling documents to PostScript or PDF. (Or, they use Latin Modern, which is based on this Type 1 version which is so spindly in the first place.) To use an adaptation which is thicker in print, and which uses the original METAFONT settings, check out mpfonts: https://ctan.org/pkg/mpfonts https://ctan.org/pkg/mpfonts. However, note that on screen, mpfonts usually doesn't look so great, since the fonts are Type 3 adaptations of the METAFONT programs and not Type 1 fonts.
daffy 7y ago
It would be nice to have a PDF filter to imitate ink bleed.

gerikson 7y ago

Was Modern Series 7 compatible with the 4-line system? The thesis seems to imply the 4-line system and Times New Roman Series 569 were linked. (page 13 compares hand-set Series 7 with 4-line set Series 569).

reikonomusha 7y ago
That is a great question, and I might be misremembering that detail.

mikorym 7y ago

I used Palatino for my thesis. The only downside is that the typefacing of mathematics is less standardised than Computer Modern. You have to play around with things in that regard. Edit: I think AMS Euler for the equations and Palatino for text is not a bad idea.

quietbritishjim 7y ago

> Computer Modern was a Herculean effort by Knuth, but in my opinion, it’s wholly lacking in many departments. It’s spindly, clinical, and vapid. I strongly agree, I hate how Computer Modern looks, especially because of what you describe as being "spindly" - it's exceptionally light. If you use any other font for body text then the contrast is overwhelming, when the maths and text ought to just flow together. You can use it for body text too but then the whole page looks a mess. > ... make a beautiful typeface for mathematics that is not gimmicky. My favourite text/maths combinations: * Palatino for text and Pazo [1] for maths. I am a big fan of Palatino, and Pazo is derived from it - I'm not sure what the exact relationship is but to me they look like basically the same font. For me, this is the direct answer to your question of a "beautiful typeface for mathematics". Perhaps not every symbol in the TeX package was hand-designed for the font, but I haven't noticed any real clash. The only problem is that it's such a radical departure from traditional TeX fonts that it might be a bit ubrupt for some people. My PhD supervisor certainly didn't like me using it (he thought I had used totally different typesetting software and told me to "just use TeX like everybody else"). \usepackage[slantedGreek]{mathpazo} \usepackage{upgreek} % Euler upright Greek; matches Palatino quite well * This is a very unfashionable opinion but I actually think Times is a very readable font and works well with mathematics. I used the times [4] package (although I note it now says you should load the font a different way) with the commercial but very affordable mtpro2 [5] * I often used Utopia for both text and maths [3]. This is more of a compromise as it looks a tiny bit like Computer Modern (to its discredit) but is more like more conventional fonts and definitely doesn't have CM's weight problem. It's actually somewhat similar to Microsoft's Cambria and Cambria Math. \usepackage[utopia,greekuppercase=italicized]{mathdesign} % for math \usepackage{esint} % make integrals look less silly \newcommand{\mathbold}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}} * I found people (maybe just my supervisor!) still had a problem with using Utopia as the text font so I settled on the super-compromise of Times text with Utopia math for my thesis; I'd have prefered the fonts to be identical but these go fairly well and certainly their weights don't clash (unlike CM with anything else). * For presentations I think it's best to use a san-serif font. The most complete combination I've been able to find is CM Bright for text/math [6] and esstixbb for blackboard bold (with beramono for fixed-width) \usepackage[slantedGreek]{cmbright} \usepackage{esstixbb} \usepackage[scaled]{beramono} [1] https://ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/mathpazo?lang=en https://ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/mathpazo?lang=en [2] https://ctan.org/pkg/upgreek?lang=en https://ctan.org/pkg/upgreek?lang=en [3] https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/utopia-mathdesign/ https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/utopia-mathdesign/ [4] https://ctan.org/pkg/times?lang=en https://ctan.org/pkg/times?lang=en [5] https://www.pctex.com/mtpro2.html https://www.pctex.com/mtpro2.html [6] https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/computermodernbright/ https://tug.org/FontCatalogue/computermodernbright/