Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Not sure if it is a CSS/browser issue, but coloneq (∶−) is not rendering correctly for me on the nLab (or nForum). It looks like “:-” to me. (Firefox 3.6)
Same in opera. Why don’t you just use :=?
That’s what “coloneq” is supposed to be! To get := you need coloneqq, two q’s. I have no idea why they named them that way.
hehe :)
Ok. I think coloneq appears several places on the nLab when it should be coloneqq, but that could be my fault. I’ll add these to special characters.
I searched for coloneq and replaced it with coloneqq on canonical morphism and smooth loop space. I also added coloneq and coloneqq to special characters.
I might go around to a few pages and replace “:=” with coloneqq (time permitting), but that is not a big deal. I’ll likely just keep a passive eye out for it. This is just a minor cosmetic thing (for a Lab Elf). No big deal.
There are (at least) two different LaTeX character packages that provide something called \coloneq
. In one of them (the one which iTeX mimics), that command produces ‘∶−’, while you need \coloneqq
to produce ‘≔’. In the other, the command produces ‘≔’, while you need (I think) \colonminus
to get ‘∶−’. So people who spell it wrong may just be familiar with the other package.
Wow, what a bad idea!
Wow, what a bad idea!
I give your reaction a 10/10!
Wow, what a bad idea!
I assume that whichever package came second didn’t know about the one that came first; they’re both fairly old and may even predate CTAN. (But that’s just a guess; I don’t really know the history.)
I’ve never understood why anyone would use \coloneq
for ∶−, since there’s nothing “eq” about it. \colonminus
makes much more sense.
The theory is eq
for one bar, eqq
for two. Compare \leq
(‘≤’) and \leqq
(‘≦’), where that convention comes from and makes more sense.
I, um, see. I agree that the convention makes sense for \leq
and \leqq
but that doesn’t mean that it makes any sense for \coloneq
and \coloneqq
. If that’s the theory, then I think someone wasn’t thinking.
Well, I like that theory. I even \let \neqq \ne
to take advantage of it (and never use \neq
, nor \le
for that matter). However, I would probably pick \colonminus
and \coloneqq
as the least ambiguous terms, avoiding \coloneq
entirely.
1 to 13 of 13