How to make this curly 'R' (ℛ)?
Which package has a similar looking fancy R or does anyone know how to make one? (Note: the line underneath the R is just the notebook paper... this is from a scanned set of notes).
math-mode fonts symbols
|
show 4 more comments
Which package has a similar looking fancy R or does anyone know how to make one? (Note: the line underneath the R is just the notebook paper... this is from a scanned set of notes).
math-mode fonts symbols
Where you have seen this symbol? Thank you.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
1
The closest I could find on the web isLauren Script
font, but requires usingfontspec
.
– Bernard
yesterday
@Bernard Hello very kind. In fact I don't see any correlation with the classic LaTeX fonts.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
1
No, if you have to use it, it has to be imported. The simplest is via xelatex or lualatex + fontspec. Of course any font can be adapted for use with LaTeX, but it takes quite some tome to do.
– Bernard
yesterday
1
@user2154420...check this: tex.stackexchange.com/a/481251/120578
– koleygr
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
Which package has a similar looking fancy R or does anyone know how to make one? (Note: the line underneath the R is just the notebook paper... this is from a scanned set of notes).
math-mode fonts symbols
Which package has a similar looking fancy R or does anyone know how to make one? (Note: the line underneath the R is just the notebook paper... this is from a scanned set of notes).
math-mode fonts symbols
math-mode fonts symbols
edited 6 hours ago
Jonas Stein
3,22042644
3,22042644
asked yesterday
user2154420user2154420
16817
16817
Where you have seen this symbol? Thank you.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
1
The closest I could find on the web isLauren Script
font, but requires usingfontspec
.
– Bernard
yesterday
@Bernard Hello very kind. In fact I don't see any correlation with the classic LaTeX fonts.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
1
No, if you have to use it, it has to be imported. The simplest is via xelatex or lualatex + fontspec. Of course any font can be adapted for use with LaTeX, but it takes quite some tome to do.
– Bernard
yesterday
1
@user2154420...check this: tex.stackexchange.com/a/481251/120578
– koleygr
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
Where you have seen this symbol? Thank you.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
1
The closest I could find on the web isLauren Script
font, but requires usingfontspec
.
– Bernard
yesterday
@Bernard Hello very kind. In fact I don't see any correlation with the classic LaTeX fonts.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
1
No, if you have to use it, it has to be imported. The simplest is via xelatex or lualatex + fontspec. Of course any font can be adapted for use with LaTeX, but it takes quite some tome to do.
– Bernard
yesterday
1
@user2154420...check this: tex.stackexchange.com/a/481251/120578
– koleygr
yesterday
Where you have seen this symbol? Thank you.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
Where you have seen this symbol? Thank you.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
1
1
The closest I could find on the web is
Lauren Script
font, but requires using fontspec
.– Bernard
yesterday
The closest I could find on the web is
Lauren Script
font, but requires using fontspec
.– Bernard
yesterday
@Bernard Hello very kind. In fact I don't see any correlation with the classic LaTeX fonts.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
@Bernard Hello very kind. In fact I don't see any correlation with the classic LaTeX fonts.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
1
1
No, if you have to use it, it has to be imported. The simplest is via xelatex or lualatex + fontspec. Of course any font can be adapted for use with LaTeX, but it takes quite some tome to do.
– Bernard
yesterday
No, if you have to use it, it has to be imported. The simplest is via xelatex or lualatex + fontspec. Of course any font can be adapted for use with LaTeX, but it takes quite some tome to do.
– Bernard
yesterday
1
1
@user2154420...check this: tex.stackexchange.com/a/481251/120578
– koleygr
yesterday
@user2154420...check this: tex.stackexchange.com/a/481251/120578
– koleygr
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
My answer is by using tikz (but with simple lines and not fill
to add effect of width):
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts}
usepackage{tikz}
usetikzlibrary{}
newcommand{fancyR}{sbox1{vbox{R}}sbox2{hbox{R}}tikz[inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt]{coordinate (A);draw[-,black,line width=0.55pt,scale=0.75]([shift={({thewd2/2},0)}]A) to[out=180,in=0] ++(-{thewd2/2},{3*(theht1+thedp1)/5)}) to[in=90,out=180]++({-thewd2/5},{-(theht1+thedp1)/8})
to[in=270,out=270]++({thewd2/2},{7*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=0,out=90]++(-{7*thewd2/20},{3*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=90,out=180]++(-{13*thewd2/24},-{11*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=180,out=270]++({3*thewd2/12},{-4*(theht1+thedp1)/10})
to[in=270,out=0]++({11*thewd2/48},{(theht1+thedp1)/3})
to[in=300,out=90]++(-{3*thewd2/13},{11*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=40,out=120]++(-{6*thewd2/10},-{1*(theht1+thedp1)/6});
}}
begin{document}
$mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$
end{document}
Output:
1
See what happens when you do{Huge $mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$}
and then consider usingline width=0.06em
instead. BTW, you could drop all of thesbox
,wd
anddp
stuff in favor of relative units, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/480818/121799. (And what isusetikzlibrary{}
good for?)
– marmot
2 hours ago
Thanks @marmot... I have already read that post. My idea was the relative height and width too, but didn't thought to useem
orex
because I tried to use the actual R's lengths (I know this is not exactly working!). The answer was posted somehow faster than should and I forgot to use line width too in relation with my measured sizes. Of course I could have save the lengths too instead of retyping. I will edit soon. Thanks. (tikzlibrary{} just left there and loads features aboutnothing
:P )
– koleygr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
In the modern toolchain with unicode-math
, you can set any TrueType or OpenType font as your script alphabet (or calligraphic, or a new alphabet). For this example, I downloaded the OTF version of Odelette by Adi Marwah into a subdirectory of my project folder named fonts
.
documentclass[varwidth]{standalone}
usepackage{unicode-math}
defaultfontfeatures{Scale = MatchUppercase}
setmathfont{Latin Modern Math}
setmathfont[Path = ./fonts/, range = scr]{Odelette.otf}
begin{document}
[ mathscr{R} subset mathscr{T} ]
end{document}
1
Upvoted you. :-). In fact to have the similar R we must go out the "classic" font LaTeX using font .ttf or otf.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano Thanks! The R from Stardust Adventure looks even more like the handwriting, but in my opinion Odelette looks pretty reasonable as a math alphabet. It comes down to personal taste.
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I always vote positively efforts, what I'm trying to make understand to users of Physics.SE. If you are registered you will find a -5 :-) on my question. Rigid thinking makes me sad.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
@Sebastiano I don’t believe I’m registered there, but I’ve been on SX communities where, if I tried to actually help a new user, I got flamed for making it harder to efficiently delete and remove “bad questions.” TeX.SX is much friendlier!
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I agree with you at the 100%.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Here are two fancy R options:
You can consult Table 307: Math Alphabets on page 119 of the comprehensive list for other options.
1
Looks like mtpro2 curly font to me :-)
– Sebastiano
yesterday
@user2154420: I posted my answer before koleygr's comment. Your question did not indicate any knowledge of standard sources such as the comprehensive list. If you don't find this answer helpful, fine. But please refrain from insulting me (or other users on this site). We are only trying to be helpful.
– Sandy G
23 hours ago
Your message came to me :-( Then I knew just afterwards. But then I read the previous comments that didn't refer to me. I'm not the type to insult or offend. My upvoted.
– Sebastiano
12 hours ago
2
In fact, none of the alphabets in table 307 of the comprehensive lists contains an "R" with this shape. Themathpro2
curly font (as identified by @Sebastiano) is the closest that I know, but this font is commercial and must be paid for. (And that is the reason it's not in the comprehensive list.) The letter may also be in other commercial fonts that I'm not familiar with. The graphicdesign.stackexchange site might be helpful in this respect.
– barbara beeton
12 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano: Very wise. Thank you for the advice. Tanti auguri!
– Sandy G
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
If you could obtain a higher-res image of it, or better still an image in vector format, then this approach would work for most situations. However, it is impervious to things like textit
, textcolor
, etc.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
newcommandfancyR{scalerel*{includegraphics{fancyR}}{R}}
begin{document}
$abfancyR c scriptscriptstyle abfancyR c$
$ y = x^{fancyR}$
$abfancyR c quadscriptscriptstyle abfancyR c$
$x_{fancyR} = 0$
end{document}
No Steven :-):-) is very ugly! Bleah :-(.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
@Sebastiano It is ugly because the original provided by the OP was low resolution. When provided in high resolution, or as a vector image, a much better result ensues: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/224357/…
– Steven B. Segletes
10 hours ago
Yeah, I know. You don't have to justify yourself. I was just smiling as each of us tries to do everything possible to get the best for the user. I'm sorry he offended Sandy, however.
– Sebastiano
9 hours ago
@Sebastiano No offense was taken. I thought I detected your tongue in your cheek, but wasn't 100% sure. You are right...as it stands, it is very ugly!
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano Correct. I am not talking about vectorinzing a rastor image, but rather creating a vector master image, created with lines and arcs, rather than pixels. That or a hi-def rastor image to start with.
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I prefer this from (mt2pro
) (the image is taken from this link https://www.pctex.com/mtpro2.html):
documentclass[12pt]{book}
usepackage[mtpccal]{mtpro2}
begin{document}
[
mathcal{R}
]
end{document}
If you prefer there is also this font TeX Gyre Pagella Math for the character bit curly R.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{unicode-math}
newcommand{nR}{mathversion{Pagella} $mathscr{R}$}
setmathfont[version=Pagella]{TeX Gyre Pagella Math}
begin{document}
nR
end{document}
add a comment |
Apart from the traditional mathcal{R}
and mathsrc{R}
mentioned in other answers (with appropriate packages, of course), consider using xelatex
with the font GL-Suetterlin:
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481230%2fhow-to-make-this-curly-r-%25e2%2584%259b%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
My answer is by using tikz (but with simple lines and not fill
to add effect of width):
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts}
usepackage{tikz}
usetikzlibrary{}
newcommand{fancyR}{sbox1{vbox{R}}sbox2{hbox{R}}tikz[inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt]{coordinate (A);draw[-,black,line width=0.55pt,scale=0.75]([shift={({thewd2/2},0)}]A) to[out=180,in=0] ++(-{thewd2/2},{3*(theht1+thedp1)/5)}) to[in=90,out=180]++({-thewd2/5},{-(theht1+thedp1)/8})
to[in=270,out=270]++({thewd2/2},{7*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=0,out=90]++(-{7*thewd2/20},{3*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=90,out=180]++(-{13*thewd2/24},-{11*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=180,out=270]++({3*thewd2/12},{-4*(theht1+thedp1)/10})
to[in=270,out=0]++({11*thewd2/48},{(theht1+thedp1)/3})
to[in=300,out=90]++(-{3*thewd2/13},{11*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=40,out=120]++(-{6*thewd2/10},-{1*(theht1+thedp1)/6});
}}
begin{document}
$mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$
end{document}
Output:
1
See what happens when you do{Huge $mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$}
and then consider usingline width=0.06em
instead. BTW, you could drop all of thesbox
,wd
anddp
stuff in favor of relative units, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/480818/121799. (And what isusetikzlibrary{}
good for?)
– marmot
2 hours ago
Thanks @marmot... I have already read that post. My idea was the relative height and width too, but didn't thought to useem
orex
because I tried to use the actual R's lengths (I know this is not exactly working!). The answer was posted somehow faster than should and I forgot to use line width too in relation with my measured sizes. Of course I could have save the lengths too instead of retyping. I will edit soon. Thanks. (tikzlibrary{} just left there and loads features aboutnothing
:P )
– koleygr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
My answer is by using tikz (but with simple lines and not fill
to add effect of width):
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts}
usepackage{tikz}
usetikzlibrary{}
newcommand{fancyR}{sbox1{vbox{R}}sbox2{hbox{R}}tikz[inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt]{coordinate (A);draw[-,black,line width=0.55pt,scale=0.75]([shift={({thewd2/2},0)}]A) to[out=180,in=0] ++(-{thewd2/2},{3*(theht1+thedp1)/5)}) to[in=90,out=180]++({-thewd2/5},{-(theht1+thedp1)/8})
to[in=270,out=270]++({thewd2/2},{7*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=0,out=90]++(-{7*thewd2/20},{3*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=90,out=180]++(-{13*thewd2/24},-{11*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=180,out=270]++({3*thewd2/12},{-4*(theht1+thedp1)/10})
to[in=270,out=0]++({11*thewd2/48},{(theht1+thedp1)/3})
to[in=300,out=90]++(-{3*thewd2/13},{11*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=40,out=120]++(-{6*thewd2/10},-{1*(theht1+thedp1)/6});
}}
begin{document}
$mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$
end{document}
Output:
1
See what happens when you do{Huge $mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$}
and then consider usingline width=0.06em
instead. BTW, you could drop all of thesbox
,wd
anddp
stuff in favor of relative units, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/480818/121799. (And what isusetikzlibrary{}
good for?)
– marmot
2 hours ago
Thanks @marmot... I have already read that post. My idea was the relative height and width too, but didn't thought to useem
orex
because I tried to use the actual R's lengths (I know this is not exactly working!). The answer was posted somehow faster than should and I forgot to use line width too in relation with my measured sizes. Of course I could have save the lengths too instead of retyping. I will edit soon. Thanks. (tikzlibrary{} just left there and loads features aboutnothing
:P )
– koleygr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
My answer is by using tikz (but with simple lines and not fill
to add effect of width):
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts}
usepackage{tikz}
usetikzlibrary{}
newcommand{fancyR}{sbox1{vbox{R}}sbox2{hbox{R}}tikz[inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt]{coordinate (A);draw[-,black,line width=0.55pt,scale=0.75]([shift={({thewd2/2},0)}]A) to[out=180,in=0] ++(-{thewd2/2},{3*(theht1+thedp1)/5)}) to[in=90,out=180]++({-thewd2/5},{-(theht1+thedp1)/8})
to[in=270,out=270]++({thewd2/2},{7*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=0,out=90]++(-{7*thewd2/20},{3*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=90,out=180]++(-{13*thewd2/24},-{11*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=180,out=270]++({3*thewd2/12},{-4*(theht1+thedp1)/10})
to[in=270,out=0]++({11*thewd2/48},{(theht1+thedp1)/3})
to[in=300,out=90]++(-{3*thewd2/13},{11*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=40,out=120]++(-{6*thewd2/10},-{1*(theht1+thedp1)/6});
}}
begin{document}
$mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$
end{document}
Output:
My answer is by using tikz (but with simple lines and not fill
to add effect of width):
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts}
usepackage{tikz}
usetikzlibrary{}
newcommand{fancyR}{sbox1{vbox{R}}sbox2{hbox{R}}tikz[inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt]{coordinate (A);draw[-,black,line width=0.55pt,scale=0.75]([shift={({thewd2/2},0)}]A) to[out=180,in=0] ++(-{thewd2/2},{3*(theht1+thedp1)/5)}) to[in=90,out=180]++({-thewd2/5},{-(theht1+thedp1)/8})
to[in=270,out=270]++({thewd2/2},{7*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=0,out=90]++(-{7*thewd2/20},{3*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=90,out=180]++(-{13*thewd2/24},-{11*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=180,out=270]++({3*thewd2/12},{-4*(theht1+thedp1)/10})
to[in=270,out=0]++({11*thewd2/48},{(theht1+thedp1)/3})
to[in=300,out=90]++(-{3*thewd2/13},{11*(theht1+thedp1)/12})
to[in=40,out=120]++(-{6*thewd2/10},-{1*(theht1+thedp1)/6});
}}
begin{document}
$mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$
end{document}
Output:
answered 11 hours ago
koleygrkoleygr
13.2k11038
13.2k11038
1
See what happens when you do{Huge $mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$}
and then consider usingline width=0.06em
instead. BTW, you could drop all of thesbox
,wd
anddp
stuff in favor of relative units, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/480818/121799. (And what isusetikzlibrary{}
good for?)
– marmot
2 hours ago
Thanks @marmot... I have already read that post. My idea was the relative height and width too, but didn't thought to useem
orex
because I tried to use the actual R's lengths (I know this is not exactly working!). The answer was posted somehow faster than should and I forgot to use line width too in relation with my measured sizes. Of course I could have save the lengths too instead of retyping. I will edit soon. Thanks. (tikzlibrary{} just left there and loads features aboutnothing
:P )
– koleygr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
See what happens when you do{Huge $mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$}
and then consider usingline width=0.06em
instead. BTW, you could drop all of thesbox
,wd
anddp
stuff in favor of relative units, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/480818/121799. (And what isusetikzlibrary{}
good for?)
– marmot
2 hours ago
Thanks @marmot... I have already read that post. My idea was the relative height and width too, but didn't thought to useem
orex
because I tried to use the actual R's lengths (I know this is not exactly working!). The answer was posted somehow faster than should and I forgot to use line width too in relation with my measured sizes. Of course I could have save the lengths too instead of retyping. I will edit soon. Thanks. (tikzlibrary{} just left there and loads features aboutnothing
:P )
– koleygr
2 hours ago
1
1
See what happens when you do
{Huge $mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$}
and then consider using line width=0.06em
instead. BTW, you could drop all of the sbox
, wd
and dp
stuff in favor of relative units, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/480818/121799. (And what is usetikzlibrary{}
good for?)– marmot
2 hours ago
See what happens when you do
{Huge $mathbb{R}$RfancyR{}$R$}
and then consider using line width=0.06em
instead. BTW, you could drop all of the sbox
, wd
and dp
stuff in favor of relative units, see tex.stackexchange.com/a/480818/121799. (And what is usetikzlibrary{}
good for?)– marmot
2 hours ago
Thanks @marmot... I have already read that post. My idea was the relative height and width too, but didn't thought to use
em
or ex
because I tried to use the actual R's lengths (I know this is not exactly working!). The answer was posted somehow faster than should and I forgot to use line width too in relation with my measured sizes. Of course I could have save the lengths too instead of retyping. I will edit soon. Thanks. (tikzlibrary{} just left there and loads features about nothing
:P )– koleygr
2 hours ago
Thanks @marmot... I have already read that post. My idea was the relative height and width too, but didn't thought to use
em
or ex
because I tried to use the actual R's lengths (I know this is not exactly working!). The answer was posted somehow faster than should and I forgot to use line width too in relation with my measured sizes. Of course I could have save the lengths too instead of retyping. I will edit soon. Thanks. (tikzlibrary{} just left there and loads features about nothing
:P )– koleygr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
In the modern toolchain with unicode-math
, you can set any TrueType or OpenType font as your script alphabet (or calligraphic, or a new alphabet). For this example, I downloaded the OTF version of Odelette by Adi Marwah into a subdirectory of my project folder named fonts
.
documentclass[varwidth]{standalone}
usepackage{unicode-math}
defaultfontfeatures{Scale = MatchUppercase}
setmathfont{Latin Modern Math}
setmathfont[Path = ./fonts/, range = scr]{Odelette.otf}
begin{document}
[ mathscr{R} subset mathscr{T} ]
end{document}
1
Upvoted you. :-). In fact to have the similar R we must go out the "classic" font LaTeX using font .ttf or otf.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano Thanks! The R from Stardust Adventure looks even more like the handwriting, but in my opinion Odelette looks pretty reasonable as a math alphabet. It comes down to personal taste.
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I always vote positively efforts, what I'm trying to make understand to users of Physics.SE. If you are registered you will find a -5 :-) on my question. Rigid thinking makes me sad.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
@Sebastiano I don’t believe I’m registered there, but I’ve been on SX communities where, if I tried to actually help a new user, I got flamed for making it harder to efficiently delete and remove “bad questions.” TeX.SX is much friendlier!
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I agree with you at the 100%.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
In the modern toolchain with unicode-math
, you can set any TrueType or OpenType font as your script alphabet (or calligraphic, or a new alphabet). For this example, I downloaded the OTF version of Odelette by Adi Marwah into a subdirectory of my project folder named fonts
.
documentclass[varwidth]{standalone}
usepackage{unicode-math}
defaultfontfeatures{Scale = MatchUppercase}
setmathfont{Latin Modern Math}
setmathfont[Path = ./fonts/, range = scr]{Odelette.otf}
begin{document}
[ mathscr{R} subset mathscr{T} ]
end{document}
1
Upvoted you. :-). In fact to have the similar R we must go out the "classic" font LaTeX using font .ttf or otf.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano Thanks! The R from Stardust Adventure looks even more like the handwriting, but in my opinion Odelette looks pretty reasonable as a math alphabet. It comes down to personal taste.
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I always vote positively efforts, what I'm trying to make understand to users of Physics.SE. If you are registered you will find a -5 :-) on my question. Rigid thinking makes me sad.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
@Sebastiano I don’t believe I’m registered there, but I’ve been on SX communities where, if I tried to actually help a new user, I got flamed for making it harder to efficiently delete and remove “bad questions.” TeX.SX is much friendlier!
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I agree with you at the 100%.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
In the modern toolchain with unicode-math
, you can set any TrueType or OpenType font as your script alphabet (or calligraphic, or a new alphabet). For this example, I downloaded the OTF version of Odelette by Adi Marwah into a subdirectory of my project folder named fonts
.
documentclass[varwidth]{standalone}
usepackage{unicode-math}
defaultfontfeatures{Scale = MatchUppercase}
setmathfont{Latin Modern Math}
setmathfont[Path = ./fonts/, range = scr]{Odelette.otf}
begin{document}
[ mathscr{R} subset mathscr{T} ]
end{document}
In the modern toolchain with unicode-math
, you can set any TrueType or OpenType font as your script alphabet (or calligraphic, or a new alphabet). For this example, I downloaded the OTF version of Odelette by Adi Marwah into a subdirectory of my project folder named fonts
.
documentclass[varwidth]{standalone}
usepackage{unicode-math}
defaultfontfeatures{Scale = MatchUppercase}
setmathfont{Latin Modern Math}
setmathfont[Path = ./fonts/, range = scr]{Odelette.otf}
begin{document}
[ mathscr{R} subset mathscr{T} ]
end{document}
answered 11 hours ago
DavislorDavislor
6,9441431
6,9441431
1
Upvoted you. :-). In fact to have the similar R we must go out the "classic" font LaTeX using font .ttf or otf.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano Thanks! The R from Stardust Adventure looks even more like the handwriting, but in my opinion Odelette looks pretty reasonable as a math alphabet. It comes down to personal taste.
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I always vote positively efforts, what I'm trying to make understand to users of Physics.SE. If you are registered you will find a -5 :-) on my question. Rigid thinking makes me sad.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
@Sebastiano I don’t believe I’m registered there, but I’ve been on SX communities where, if I tried to actually help a new user, I got flamed for making it harder to efficiently delete and remove “bad questions.” TeX.SX is much friendlier!
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I agree with you at the 100%.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
Upvoted you. :-). In fact to have the similar R we must go out the "classic" font LaTeX using font .ttf or otf.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano Thanks! The R from Stardust Adventure looks even more like the handwriting, but in my opinion Odelette looks pretty reasonable as a math alphabet. It comes down to personal taste.
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I always vote positively efforts, what I'm trying to make understand to users of Physics.SE. If you are registered you will find a -5 :-) on my question. Rigid thinking makes me sad.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
@Sebastiano I don’t believe I’m registered there, but I’ve been on SX communities where, if I tried to actually help a new user, I got flamed for making it harder to efficiently delete and remove “bad questions.” TeX.SX is much friendlier!
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I agree with you at the 100%.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
1
1
Upvoted you. :-). In fact to have the similar R we must go out the "classic" font LaTeX using font .ttf or otf.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
Upvoted you. :-). In fact to have the similar R we must go out the "classic" font LaTeX using font .ttf or otf.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
1
1
@Sebastiano Thanks! The R from Stardust Adventure looks even more like the handwriting, but in my opinion Odelette looks pretty reasonable as a math alphabet. It comes down to personal taste.
– Davislor
4 hours ago
@Sebastiano Thanks! The R from Stardust Adventure looks even more like the handwriting, but in my opinion Odelette looks pretty reasonable as a math alphabet. It comes down to personal taste.
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I always vote positively efforts, what I'm trying to make understand to users of Physics.SE. If you are registered you will find a -5 :-) on my question. Rigid thinking makes me sad.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
I always vote positively efforts, what I'm trying to make understand to users of Physics.SE. If you are registered you will find a -5 :-) on my question. Rigid thinking makes me sad.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
@Sebastiano I don’t believe I’m registered there, but I’ve been on SX communities where, if I tried to actually help a new user, I got flamed for making it harder to efficiently delete and remove “bad questions.” TeX.SX is much friendlier!
– Davislor
4 hours ago
@Sebastiano I don’t believe I’m registered there, but I’ve been on SX communities where, if I tried to actually help a new user, I got flamed for making it harder to efficiently delete and remove “bad questions.” TeX.SX is much friendlier!
– Davislor
4 hours ago
I agree with you at the 100%.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
I agree with you at the 100%.
– Sebastiano
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Here are two fancy R options:
You can consult Table 307: Math Alphabets on page 119 of the comprehensive list for other options.
1
Looks like mtpro2 curly font to me :-)
– Sebastiano
yesterday
@user2154420: I posted my answer before koleygr's comment. Your question did not indicate any knowledge of standard sources such as the comprehensive list. If you don't find this answer helpful, fine. But please refrain from insulting me (or other users on this site). We are only trying to be helpful.
– Sandy G
23 hours ago
Your message came to me :-( Then I knew just afterwards. But then I read the previous comments that didn't refer to me. I'm not the type to insult or offend. My upvoted.
– Sebastiano
12 hours ago
2
In fact, none of the alphabets in table 307 of the comprehensive lists contains an "R" with this shape. Themathpro2
curly font (as identified by @Sebastiano) is the closest that I know, but this font is commercial and must be paid for. (And that is the reason it's not in the comprehensive list.) The letter may also be in other commercial fonts that I'm not familiar with. The graphicdesign.stackexchange site might be helpful in this respect.
– barbara beeton
12 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano: Very wise. Thank you for the advice. Tanti auguri!
– Sandy G
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Here are two fancy R options:
You can consult Table 307: Math Alphabets on page 119 of the comprehensive list for other options.
1
Looks like mtpro2 curly font to me :-)
– Sebastiano
yesterday
@user2154420: I posted my answer before koleygr's comment. Your question did not indicate any knowledge of standard sources such as the comprehensive list. If you don't find this answer helpful, fine. But please refrain from insulting me (or other users on this site). We are only trying to be helpful.
– Sandy G
23 hours ago
Your message came to me :-( Then I knew just afterwards. But then I read the previous comments that didn't refer to me. I'm not the type to insult or offend. My upvoted.
– Sebastiano
12 hours ago
2
In fact, none of the alphabets in table 307 of the comprehensive lists contains an "R" with this shape. Themathpro2
curly font (as identified by @Sebastiano) is the closest that I know, but this font is commercial and must be paid for. (And that is the reason it's not in the comprehensive list.) The letter may also be in other commercial fonts that I'm not familiar with. The graphicdesign.stackexchange site might be helpful in this respect.
– barbara beeton
12 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano: Very wise. Thank you for the advice. Tanti auguri!
– Sandy G
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Here are two fancy R options:
You can consult Table 307: Math Alphabets on page 119 of the comprehensive list for other options.
Here are two fancy R options:
You can consult Table 307: Math Alphabets on page 119 of the comprehensive list for other options.
answered yesterday
Sandy GSandy G
4,2051632
4,2051632
1
Looks like mtpro2 curly font to me :-)
– Sebastiano
yesterday
@user2154420: I posted my answer before koleygr's comment. Your question did not indicate any knowledge of standard sources such as the comprehensive list. If you don't find this answer helpful, fine. But please refrain from insulting me (or other users on this site). We are only trying to be helpful.
– Sandy G
23 hours ago
Your message came to me :-( Then I knew just afterwards. But then I read the previous comments that didn't refer to me. I'm not the type to insult or offend. My upvoted.
– Sebastiano
12 hours ago
2
In fact, none of the alphabets in table 307 of the comprehensive lists contains an "R" with this shape. Themathpro2
curly font (as identified by @Sebastiano) is the closest that I know, but this font is commercial and must be paid for. (And that is the reason it's not in the comprehensive list.) The letter may also be in other commercial fonts that I'm not familiar with. The graphicdesign.stackexchange site might be helpful in this respect.
– barbara beeton
12 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano: Very wise. Thank you for the advice. Tanti auguri!
– Sandy G
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
1
Looks like mtpro2 curly font to me :-)
– Sebastiano
yesterday
@user2154420: I posted my answer before koleygr's comment. Your question did not indicate any knowledge of standard sources such as the comprehensive list. If you don't find this answer helpful, fine. But please refrain from insulting me (or other users on this site). We are only trying to be helpful.
– Sandy G
23 hours ago
Your message came to me :-( Then I knew just afterwards. But then I read the previous comments that didn't refer to me. I'm not the type to insult or offend. My upvoted.
– Sebastiano
12 hours ago
2
In fact, none of the alphabets in table 307 of the comprehensive lists contains an "R" with this shape. Themathpro2
curly font (as identified by @Sebastiano) is the closest that I know, but this font is commercial and must be paid for. (And that is the reason it's not in the comprehensive list.) The letter may also be in other commercial fonts that I'm not familiar with. The graphicdesign.stackexchange site might be helpful in this respect.
– barbara beeton
12 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano: Very wise. Thank you for the advice. Tanti auguri!
– Sandy G
5 hours ago
1
1
Looks like mtpro2 curly font to me :-)
– Sebastiano
yesterday
Looks like mtpro2 curly font to me :-)
– Sebastiano
yesterday
@user2154420: I posted my answer before koleygr's comment. Your question did not indicate any knowledge of standard sources such as the comprehensive list. If you don't find this answer helpful, fine. But please refrain from insulting me (or other users on this site). We are only trying to be helpful.
– Sandy G
23 hours ago
@user2154420: I posted my answer before koleygr's comment. Your question did not indicate any knowledge of standard sources such as the comprehensive list. If you don't find this answer helpful, fine. But please refrain from insulting me (or other users on this site). We are only trying to be helpful.
– Sandy G
23 hours ago
Your message came to me :-( Then I knew just afterwards. But then I read the previous comments that didn't refer to me. I'm not the type to insult or offend. My upvoted.
– Sebastiano
12 hours ago
Your message came to me :-( Then I knew just afterwards. But then I read the previous comments that didn't refer to me. I'm not the type to insult or offend. My upvoted.
– Sebastiano
12 hours ago
2
2
In fact, none of the alphabets in table 307 of the comprehensive lists contains an "R" with this shape. The
mathpro2
curly font (as identified by @Sebastiano) is the closest that I know, but this font is commercial and must be paid for. (And that is the reason it's not in the comprehensive list.) The letter may also be in other commercial fonts that I'm not familiar with. The graphicdesign.stackexchange site might be helpful in this respect.– barbara beeton
12 hours ago
In fact, none of the alphabets in table 307 of the comprehensive lists contains an "R" with this shape. The
mathpro2
curly font (as identified by @Sebastiano) is the closest that I know, but this font is commercial and must be paid for. (And that is the reason it's not in the comprehensive list.) The letter may also be in other commercial fonts that I'm not familiar with. The graphicdesign.stackexchange site might be helpful in this respect.– barbara beeton
12 hours ago
1
1
@Sebastiano: Very wise. Thank you for the advice. Tanti auguri!
– Sandy G
5 hours ago
@Sebastiano: Very wise. Thank you for the advice. Tanti auguri!
– Sandy G
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
If you could obtain a higher-res image of it, or better still an image in vector format, then this approach would work for most situations. However, it is impervious to things like textit
, textcolor
, etc.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
newcommandfancyR{scalerel*{includegraphics{fancyR}}{R}}
begin{document}
$abfancyR c scriptscriptstyle abfancyR c$
$ y = x^{fancyR}$
$abfancyR c quadscriptscriptstyle abfancyR c$
$x_{fancyR} = 0$
end{document}
No Steven :-):-) is very ugly! Bleah :-(.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
@Sebastiano It is ugly because the original provided by the OP was low resolution. When provided in high resolution, or as a vector image, a much better result ensues: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/224357/…
– Steven B. Segletes
10 hours ago
Yeah, I know. You don't have to justify yourself. I was just smiling as each of us tries to do everything possible to get the best for the user. I'm sorry he offended Sandy, however.
– Sebastiano
9 hours ago
@Sebastiano No offense was taken. I thought I detected your tongue in your cheek, but wasn't 100% sure. You are right...as it stands, it is very ugly!
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano Correct. I am not talking about vectorinzing a rastor image, but rather creating a vector master image, created with lines and arcs, rather than pixels. That or a hi-def rastor image to start with.
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
If you could obtain a higher-res image of it, or better still an image in vector format, then this approach would work for most situations. However, it is impervious to things like textit
, textcolor
, etc.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
newcommandfancyR{scalerel*{includegraphics{fancyR}}{R}}
begin{document}
$abfancyR c scriptscriptstyle abfancyR c$
$ y = x^{fancyR}$
$abfancyR c quadscriptscriptstyle abfancyR c$
$x_{fancyR} = 0$
end{document}
No Steven :-):-) is very ugly! Bleah :-(.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
@Sebastiano It is ugly because the original provided by the OP was low resolution. When provided in high resolution, or as a vector image, a much better result ensues: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/224357/…
– Steven B. Segletes
10 hours ago
Yeah, I know. You don't have to justify yourself. I was just smiling as each of us tries to do everything possible to get the best for the user. I'm sorry he offended Sandy, however.
– Sebastiano
9 hours ago
@Sebastiano No offense was taken. I thought I detected your tongue in your cheek, but wasn't 100% sure. You are right...as it stands, it is very ugly!
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano Correct. I am not talking about vectorinzing a rastor image, but rather creating a vector master image, created with lines and arcs, rather than pixels. That or a hi-def rastor image to start with.
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
If you could obtain a higher-res image of it, or better still an image in vector format, then this approach would work for most situations. However, it is impervious to things like textit
, textcolor
, etc.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
newcommandfancyR{scalerel*{includegraphics{fancyR}}{R}}
begin{document}
$abfancyR c scriptscriptstyle abfancyR c$
$ y = x^{fancyR}$
$abfancyR c quadscriptscriptstyle abfancyR c$
$x_{fancyR} = 0$
end{document}
If you could obtain a higher-res image of it, or better still an image in vector format, then this approach would work for most situations. However, it is impervious to things like textit
, textcolor
, etc.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
newcommandfancyR{scalerel*{includegraphics{fancyR}}{R}}
begin{document}
$abfancyR c scriptscriptstyle abfancyR c$
$ y = x^{fancyR}$
$abfancyR c quadscriptscriptstyle abfancyR c$
$x_{fancyR} = 0$
end{document}
edited 10 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
Steven B. SegletesSteven B. Segletes
159k9204412
159k9204412
No Steven :-):-) is very ugly! Bleah :-(.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
@Sebastiano It is ugly because the original provided by the OP was low resolution. When provided in high resolution, or as a vector image, a much better result ensues: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/224357/…
– Steven B. Segletes
10 hours ago
Yeah, I know. You don't have to justify yourself. I was just smiling as each of us tries to do everything possible to get the best for the user. I'm sorry he offended Sandy, however.
– Sebastiano
9 hours ago
@Sebastiano No offense was taken. I thought I detected your tongue in your cheek, but wasn't 100% sure. You are right...as it stands, it is very ugly!
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano Correct. I am not talking about vectorinzing a rastor image, but rather creating a vector master image, created with lines and arcs, rather than pixels. That or a hi-def rastor image to start with.
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
No Steven :-):-) is very ugly! Bleah :-(.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
@Sebastiano It is ugly because the original provided by the OP was low resolution. When provided in high resolution, or as a vector image, a much better result ensues: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/224357/…
– Steven B. Segletes
10 hours ago
Yeah, I know. You don't have to justify yourself. I was just smiling as each of us tries to do everything possible to get the best for the user. I'm sorry he offended Sandy, however.
– Sebastiano
9 hours ago
@Sebastiano No offense was taken. I thought I detected your tongue in your cheek, but wasn't 100% sure. You are right...as it stands, it is very ugly!
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
1
@Sebastiano Correct. I am not talking about vectorinzing a rastor image, but rather creating a vector master image, created with lines and arcs, rather than pixels. That or a hi-def rastor image to start with.
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
No Steven :-):-) is very ugly! Bleah :-(.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
No Steven :-):-) is very ugly! Bleah :-(.
– Sebastiano
10 hours ago
@Sebastiano It is ugly because the original provided by the OP was low resolution. When provided in high resolution, or as a vector image, a much better result ensues: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/224357/…
– Steven B. Segletes
10 hours ago
@Sebastiano It is ugly because the original provided by the OP was low resolution. When provided in high resolution, or as a vector image, a much better result ensues: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/224357/…
– Steven B. Segletes
10 hours ago
Yeah, I know. You don't have to justify yourself. I was just smiling as each of us tries to do everything possible to get the best for the user. I'm sorry he offended Sandy, however.
– Sebastiano
9 hours ago
Yeah, I know. You don't have to justify yourself. I was just smiling as each of us tries to do everything possible to get the best for the user. I'm sorry he offended Sandy, however.
– Sebastiano
9 hours ago
@Sebastiano No offense was taken. I thought I detected your tongue in your cheek, but wasn't 100% sure. You are right...as it stands, it is very ugly!
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
@Sebastiano No offense was taken. I thought I detected your tongue in your cheek, but wasn't 100% sure. You are right...as it stands, it is very ugly!
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
1
1
@Sebastiano Correct. I am not talking about vectorinzing a rastor image, but rather creating a vector master image, created with lines and arcs, rather than pixels. That or a hi-def rastor image to start with.
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
@Sebastiano Correct. I am not talking about vectorinzing a rastor image, but rather creating a vector master image, created with lines and arcs, rather than pixels. That or a hi-def rastor image to start with.
– Steven B. Segletes
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I prefer this from (mt2pro
) (the image is taken from this link https://www.pctex.com/mtpro2.html):
documentclass[12pt]{book}
usepackage[mtpccal]{mtpro2}
begin{document}
[
mathcal{R}
]
end{document}
If you prefer there is also this font TeX Gyre Pagella Math for the character bit curly R.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{unicode-math}
newcommand{nR}{mathversion{Pagella} $mathscr{R}$}
setmathfont[version=Pagella]{TeX Gyre Pagella Math}
begin{document}
nR
end{document}
add a comment |
I prefer this from (mt2pro
) (the image is taken from this link https://www.pctex.com/mtpro2.html):
documentclass[12pt]{book}
usepackage[mtpccal]{mtpro2}
begin{document}
[
mathcal{R}
]
end{document}
If you prefer there is also this font TeX Gyre Pagella Math for the character bit curly R.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{unicode-math}
newcommand{nR}{mathversion{Pagella} $mathscr{R}$}
setmathfont[version=Pagella]{TeX Gyre Pagella Math}
begin{document}
nR
end{document}
add a comment |
I prefer this from (mt2pro
) (the image is taken from this link https://www.pctex.com/mtpro2.html):
documentclass[12pt]{book}
usepackage[mtpccal]{mtpro2}
begin{document}
[
mathcal{R}
]
end{document}
If you prefer there is also this font TeX Gyre Pagella Math for the character bit curly R.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{unicode-math}
newcommand{nR}{mathversion{Pagella} $mathscr{R}$}
setmathfont[version=Pagella]{TeX Gyre Pagella Math}
begin{document}
nR
end{document}
I prefer this from (mt2pro
) (the image is taken from this link https://www.pctex.com/mtpro2.html):
documentclass[12pt]{book}
usepackage[mtpccal]{mtpro2}
begin{document}
[
mathcal{R}
]
end{document}
If you prefer there is also this font TeX Gyre Pagella Math for the character bit curly R.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{unicode-math}
newcommand{nR}{mathversion{Pagella} $mathscr{R}$}
setmathfont[version=Pagella]{TeX Gyre Pagella Math}
begin{document}
nR
end{document}
edited 2 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
SebastianoSebastiano
11.1k42164
11.1k42164
add a comment |
add a comment |
Apart from the traditional mathcal{R}
and mathsrc{R}
mentioned in other answers (with appropriate packages, of course), consider using xelatex
with the font GL-Suetterlin:
add a comment |
Apart from the traditional mathcal{R}
and mathsrc{R}
mentioned in other answers (with appropriate packages, of course), consider using xelatex
with the font GL-Suetterlin:
add a comment |
Apart from the traditional mathcal{R}
and mathsrc{R}
mentioned in other answers (with appropriate packages, of course), consider using xelatex
with the font GL-Suetterlin:
Apart from the traditional mathcal{R}
and mathsrc{R}
mentioned in other answers (with appropriate packages, of course), consider using xelatex
with the font GL-Suetterlin:
answered 39 mins ago
user49915user49915
627121
627121
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481230%2fhow-to-make-this-curly-r-%25e2%2584%259b%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Where you have seen this symbol? Thank you.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
1
The closest I could find on the web is
Lauren Script
font, but requires usingfontspec
.– Bernard
yesterday
@Bernard Hello very kind. In fact I don't see any correlation with the classic LaTeX fonts.
– Sebastiano
yesterday
1
No, if you have to use it, it has to be imported. The simplest is via xelatex or lualatex + fontspec. Of course any font can be adapted for use with LaTeX, but it takes quite some tome to do.
– Bernard
yesterday
1
@user2154420...check this: tex.stackexchange.com/a/481251/120578
– koleygr
yesterday