4 ms·

In physics, it's \mathrm dx. In mathematics, it's dx.

Tainnor 4y ago
It would appear that it is even more complicated than that and so depends on nationality, the field in question etc.: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/88961/31889 https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/88961/31889 TIL
quietbritishjim 4y ago
Historically, by which I mean professional typeset documents in early 20th century, it was upright d in both. It's often italic dx in maths now probably just because doing it right is tricky (at least non-zero effort) in LaTeX. In many articles, there isn't even spacing around differentials. That doesn't mean that is correct too. It just means that, like upright d, the author has more pressing issues than small details of typesetting. It similar to how vectors (in physics / applied maths) are represented by upright bold letter. Historically, these were bold-italic - the same as how most variables are italic. But early versions of TeX only supported fonts in regular, italic and bold - no bold italic variants existed (even now, bold italics are not universally available for Greek characters). So people used upright bold for vectors, and now it's assumed that it was deliberate.
- zeur0aoV 4y ago
  Not really. It has nothing to do with LaTeX. Most of them are italic in mathematics . For example, in Hermite's textbook (1882) (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k97981084/f31.item.texteImage https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k97981084/f31.item.tex...), page 13, the dω is italic. In Klein's Lectures on Mathematics (1894) (https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/ICM/Proceedings/ICM1893.2/ICM1893.2.ocr.pdf https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/ICM/Proceedings/ICM1893....) page 20, the dx is italic. In Goursat's textbook (1933) (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9454797/f107.item https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9454797/f107.item), the dx is also italic.
mgubi 4y ago
In my mathematics is \d x .
thanatropism 4y ago
?

It would appear that it is even more complicated than that and so depends on nationality, the field in question etc.: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/88961/31889 https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/88961/31889 TIL

quietbritishjim 4y ago

Historically, by which I mean professional typeset documents in early 20th century, it was upright d in both. It's often italic dx in maths now probably just because doing it right is tricky (at least non-zero effort) in LaTeX. In many articles, there isn't even spacing around differentials. That doesn't mean that is correct too. It just means that, like upright d, the author has more pressing issues than small details of typesetting. It similar to how vectors (in physics / applied maths) are represented by upright bold letter. Historically, these were bold-italic - the same as how most variables are italic. But early versions of TeX only supported fonts in regular, italic and bold - no bold italic variants existed (even now, bold italics are not universally available for Greek characters). So people used upright bold for vectors, and now it's assumed that it was deliberate.

zeur0aoV 4y ago
Not really. It has nothing to do with LaTeX. Most of them are italic in mathematics . For example, in Hermite's textbook (1882) (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k97981084/f31.item.texteImage https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k97981084/f31.item.tex...), page 13, the dω is italic. In Klein's Lectures on Mathematics (1894) (https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/ICM/Proceedings/ICM1893.2/ICM1893.2.ocr.pdf https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/ICM/Proceedings/ICM1893....) page 20, the dx is italic. In Goursat's textbook (1933) (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9454797/f107.item https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9454797/f107.item), the dx is also italic.

mgubi 4y ago

In my mathematics is \d x .

thanatropism 4y ago